JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff instituted a civil suit for recovery of money. However during the pendency of the civil suit, an application cast under the provisions of Section 8 read with Section 5 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), was preferred by the defendants, before the learned trial Court, wherein they claimed, that since the dispute constituted in the plaint, was, arbitrable, hence the statutory redressal mechanism constituted, under the Act, being rather available for espousal, vis-à-vis the plaintiff. However, under a pronouncement recorded on 16.3.2017, the learned trial Court dismissed the defendants’ application, cast under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the Act. The civil suit was listed on 29.4.2017, for the filing of written statement (s), by the defendants, to the plaint, and, it was again listed on 27.6.2017, for filing of written statement (s), by the defendants. However, on 27.6.2017, for omission of the defendants, to institute written statement (s), to the plaint, the learned trial Court concluded, that since the mandatory period of 90 days, has elapsed, since the institution of the suit, upto 27.6.2017, hence it refused indulgence, to the defendants, to institute written statement (s). Also, it ordered for recording of ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff. The defendants are aggrieved by the aforesaid order, hence institute a petition before this Court. 2. The learned trial Court has apparently committed, a gross error, also has not exercised jurisdiction in accordance with law, in making a conclusion, in the impugned order, of the period of 90 days, rather elapsing since the institution of the suit, upto 27.6.2017, (i) whereupon it was constrained, to strike off the defendants’ right to file written statement, to the plaint. The reason for making the aforesaid conclusion, arises from the factum that with the period, wherewithin the defendants’ application, cast under the Act, was pending for adjudication, being neither computable, besides being not reckonable by the learned trial Judge, for his computing the ordained period of 90 days, rather the period of 90 days being computable, from, 29.4.2017 upto 27.6.2017, in interregnum whereof the ordained period of 90 days, has apparently not elapsed. 3. 3. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the analysis of the material on record by the learned Courts below, suffers, from a perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non-appreciation of material on record , besides obviously of apt statutory provisions. 4. Accordingly, there is merit in the petition, and, the same is allowed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 27.4.2018. The learned trial Court is directed to permit the defendants, to, within three weeks from 27.4.2018, institute written statement to the plaint. The records be sent back forthwith. All the pending application (s), if any, are disposed of. No costs.