JUDGMENT : The petitioner is aggrieved of the order by which the trial judge has declined to recall order dated 23.09.2011 debarring the petitioner from filing written statement in Title Suit No.03 of 2011. 2. By an order dated 20.04.2012 further proceeding in Title Suit No.03 of 2011 was stayed by this Court. 3. The petitioner has been labelled as proforma defendant in Title Suit No.03 of 2011. The suit was instituted for a decree of plaintiff's subsisting title and interest over the schedule 'B' properties and for a declaration that sale deed dated 24.03.2003 executed by defendant no.3 in favour of defendant no.1 is void, illegal, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought other reliefs also, but for the present these are not relevant. The petitioner who has been arrayed as proforma defendant no.4 was served summons on 10.05.2011 and he appeared in the suit on 19.05.2011. Thereafter the trial court granted six opportunities to the defendant no.4 for filing written statement. On 08.08.2011 the defendant no.4 filed an application seeking further time for filing the written statement. This application was allowed and the suit was posted for 20.08.2011, however, the defendant no.4 did not file written statement rather, on 30.08.2011 and 13.09.2011 again time was sought for filing written statement. Finally, by an order dated 23.09.2011 the defendant no.4 was debarred from filing written statement and the suit was set for ex-parte hearing. Seeking recall of order dated 23.09.2011 an application was filed under section 151 CPC which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 24.03.2012. 4. Seriously objecting to the description of the petitioner in Title Suit No.03 of 2011 as proforma defendant no.4, Sri R.S. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who has a valuable interest in schedule 'B' properties, has been wrongly labelled as proforma defendant. Stand taken by the petitioner is that the suit land comprised in plot no.175 was in possession of Suren Napit and father of the defendant namely, Purno Napit. It is pleaded that with the consent of the defendant, his other brothers and sisters jointly sold 7 decimals lands comprised in schedule plot no.175 to the defendant no.1 through a registered sale deed dated 24.03.2003. 5. It is pleaded that with the consent of the defendant, his other brothers and sisters jointly sold 7 decimals lands comprised in schedule plot no.175 to the defendant no.1 through a registered sale deed dated 24.03.2003. 5. Resisting challenge to the impugned order dated 24.03.2012, Sri Sudhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that several opportunities were granted to the petitioner for filing written statement, however, he did not avail the opportunities granted by the trial court and only to prolong disposal of the title suit, the defendant no.4 filed the application dated 16.02.2012 seeking recall of the order debarring him from filing the written statement. 6. Order dated 20.04.2012 of this Court, while staying further proceeding in Title Suit No. 03 of 2011, notices judgment of the Supreme Court in “Kailash Vs. Nanhku & Ors.” reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 . In the said case it has been held as under: 46. “(iv) The purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. The provision spells out a disability on the defendant. It does not impose an embargo on the power of the court to extend the time. Though the language of the proviso to Rule 1 Order 8 CPC is couched in negative form, it does not specify any penal consequences flowing from the non-compliance. The provision being in the domain of the procedural law, it has to be held directory and not mandatory. The power of the court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is not completely taken away.” 7. The mandate under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC by which the defendant has been granted an opportunity to file written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons and the proviso to Rule 1 extending the time by further 90 days, has been held binding on the parties and not on the Court [refer, “Rani Kusum (Smt.) Vrs. Kanchan Devi (Smt.)” reported in (2005) 6 SCC 705 ]. 8. Kanchan Devi (Smt.)” reported in (2005) 6 SCC 705 ]. 8. Insofar as opportunities granted to the petitioner for filing written statement on previous six occasions is concerned, once the trial Court granted further opportunity to the petitioner on his application dated 08.08.2011, the default on part of the petitioner from 20.08.2011 to 23.09.2011 only needs to be examined. There has been a delay of only 33 days by the petitioner in not filing written statement within the time granted by the trial court. The time-limit fixed under different provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure is intended to expeditious disposal of the suits. However, the mandate under the Code of Civil Procedure how has been frustrated by routine orders passed by the trial court is apparent in the present case. The petitioner was debarred from filing written statement on 23.09.2011 and the application seeking recall of the said order was dismissed on 24.03.2012, in the meantime six months had elapsed. This Court passed an order on 20.04.2012 staying further proceeding in Title Suit No. 03 of 2011 and it has been more than five years since the further proceeding in the Title Suit has been stayed. 9. Finding serious infirmities in the approach of the trial court, in not permitting the defendant no.4 to file the written statement, the impugned order dated 24.03.3012 is set aside. Consequently order dated 23.09.2011 stands annulled. The written statement submitted by the defendant no.4 which has been kept on record shall be accepted, however, in view of the laches on the part of the petitioner and the consequent delay caused in disposal of the suit the writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs.25000/- to be paid to the plaintiff, within 4 weeks.