ORDER : 1. This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 31.01.2018 passed in T.S. No.118 of 2015 by Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Koderma is under challenge, by which the written statement filed by the defendant has been refused to be accepted by the trial court. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that a title suit has been filed being T.S. No.118 of 2015 for seeking relief for cancellation of sale deed No.2968 of 2015 dated 20.05.2015 and accordingly, declaring it null and void for the suit land pertaining to area of four decimal, Plot No.3056 and area one decimal, Plot No.3057 both Khata No.97 of Mouza Marchoi, P.S-Satgawan, Dist-Hazaribagh. Petitioners/defendants had appeared on 22.11.2016 and 24.06.2016 respectively but not filed written statement and as such the petitioners were debarred on 30.05.2017 from filing written statement. Petitioners have filed written statement on 08.08.2017 and on 16.09.2017 also filed application for condonation of delay of about nine months and 14 months in filing written statement respectively on behalf of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and prayed to accept the written statement filed on 08.08.2017 but the same has been rejected vide impugned order against which the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Ms. Rashmi Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have not filed written statement for the reason that certain document were not in their possession rather in the possession of their relatives and as such there is some delay in filing the written statement, as such the same may be accepted otherwise the petitioners will be prejudiced. 4. This Court after hearing the petitioner has issued notice upon the respondents vide order dated 26.06.2019, in pursuance thereof, the respondents have appeared through Vakalatnama represented by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel. 5. 4. This Court after hearing the petitioner has issued notice upon the respondents vide order dated 26.06.2019, in pursuance thereof, the respondents have appeared through Vakalatnama represented by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed for the reason that as per the Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the initial period to file written statement is 30 days and, in exceptional circumstances, the same can be extended for a further period of 90 days and as such, the written statement has not been filed even after appearance of the petitioners/defendants with the period of 90 days and hence the petitioners have been debarred from filing written statement as per the order dated 30.05.2017 and without questioning the aforesaid order before any higher court written statement has been filed on 08.08.2017 and subsequent thereto a petition was filed on 16.09.2017 for acceptance of the written statement and as such the trial court after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and considering the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 has rightly rejected the petition hence the same cannot be interfered with. 6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submissions, this Court after going across the pleading made in the writ petition and the finding recorded by the trial court in the impugned order, deem it fit and proper before entering into the legality and propriety to deal with the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under: “1. Written statement- The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.” The provision of Order VIII Rule 1 provides provision for filing written statement within the time frame of thirty days initially extendable to ninety days subject to the reason for not filing the written statement within the time. Further the provision of Order VIII Rule 10 also needs to refer herein which reads as under: “10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court- Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up.” It is evident from conjoint reading of both the provisions there is no restriction as per the provision made under Order VIII Rule 10 that after expiry of 90 days further time can be granted and court has got power to make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. 7. The issue of provision under Order VIII Rule 1 vis-a-vis Rule 10 was the subject matter before Hon’ble Apex Court before its Constitution Bench in the judgment rendered in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Versus Union of India reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the aforesaid provision has considered the issue as to whether the insertion of word “shall” is indicative of mandatory nature of the provision and it has been laid down therein that the use of the word “shall” in Order VIII Rule 1 by itself is not conclusive to determine as to whether the provision is mandatory or directory. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down at paragraph 20 and 21 which reads as under: “20. The use of the word “shall in Order 8 Rule 1 by itself is not conclusive to determine whether the provision is mandatory or directory. We have to ascertain the object which is required to be served by this provision and its design and context in which it is enacted. The use of the word “shall” is ordinarily indicative of mandatory nature of the provision but having regard to the context in which it is used or having regard to the intention of the legislation, the same can be construed as directory. The rule in question has to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. The rules of procedure are made to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. Construction of the rule or procedure which promotes justice and prevents miscarriage has to be preferred. The rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice and not its mistress. In the present context, the strict interpretation would defeat justice. 21. In construing this provision, support can also be had from Order 8 Rule 10 which provides that where any part from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9, fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the court, the court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such other order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. On failure to file written statement under this provision, the court has been given the discretion either to pronounce judgment against the defendant or make such other order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. In the context of the provision, despite use of the word “shall”, the court has been given the discretion to pronounce or not to pronounce the judgment against the defendant even if the written statement is not filed and instead pass such order as it may think fit in relation to the suit. In construing the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 and Rule 10, the doctrine of harmonious construction is required to be applied. In construing the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 and Rule 10, the doctrine of harmonious construction is required to be applied. The effect would be that under Rule 10 Order 8, the court in its discretion would have the power to allow the defendant to file written statement even after expiry of the period of 90 days provided in Order 8 Rule 1. There is no restriction in Order 8 Rule 10 that after expiry of ninety days, further time cannot be granted. The court has wide power to “make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit”. Clearly, therefore, the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory. Having said so, we wish to make it clear that the order extending time to file written statement cannot be made in routine. The time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. While extending time, it has to be borne in mind that the legislature has fixed the upper time-limit of 90 days. The discretion of the court to extend the time shall not be so frequently and routinely exercised so as to nullify the period fixed by Order 8 Rule 1.” It is evident from the paragraph referred hereinabove the time limit provided under Order VIII Rule 1 both is not mandatory rather it is directory and the time can be extended but only for exceptional hard cases and while extending the time it is to be borne in mind that the legislature has fixed the upper limit of 90 days and the discretion of the court to extend the time shall not be so frequently and routinely exercise so as to nullify the period fixed by Order VIII Rule 1. The judgment rendered in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Versus Union of India (supra) has been considered again by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Atcom Technologies Limited vs. Y.A. Chunawala and Company & Ors. reported in (2018) 6 SCC 639 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 19 and 20 has been pleased to hold which reads as under: “19. reported in (2018) 6 SCC 639 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 19 and 20 has been pleased to hold which reads as under: “19. It has to be borne in mind that as per the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the defendant is obligated to present a written statement of his defence within thirty days from the date of service of summons. Proviso thereto enables the Court to extend the period up to ninety days from the date of service of summons for sufficient reasons. Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as under: “1. Written statement.—The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.” 20. This provision has come up for interpretation before this Court in number of cases. No doubt, the words “shall not be later than ninety days” do not take away the power of the court to accept written statement beyond that time and it is also held that the nature of the provision is procedural and it is not a part of substantive law. At the same time, this Court has also mandated that time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. We would like to reproduce the following discussion from Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India: (SCC p. 364, para 21) “21. … There is no restriction in Order 8 Rule 10 that after expiry of ninety days, further time cannot be granted. The court has wide power to “make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit”. Clearly, therefore, the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory. Having said so, we wish to make it clear that the order extending time to file written statement cannot be made in routine. The time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. Clearly, therefore, the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory. Having said so, we wish to make it clear that the order extending time to file written statement cannot be made in routine. The time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. While extending time, it has to be borne in mind that the legislature has fixed the upper time-limit of 90 days. The discretion of the court to extend the time shall not be so frequently and routinely exercised so as to nullify the period fixed by Order 8 Rule 1.” It is evident from the aforesaid ratio laid down as referred in the aforesaid paragraphs that the time can be extended only in exceptional hard cases. Further, at paragraph 22, it has been laid down that the provisions under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are procedural in nature and therefore, handmaid of justice. However, that could not mean that the defendant has right to take as much time he wants in filing the written statement without giving convincing and cogent reasons for delay and the High Court has to condone it mechanically, wherein at paragraph 22 it has been held as under. “22. We fail to persuade ourselves with this kind of reasoning given by the High Court in condoning the delay, thereby disregarding the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the spirit behind it. This reason of the High Court that delay was condoned “by balancing the rights and equities” is far-fetched and, in the process, abnormal delay in filing the written statement is condoned without addressing the relevant factor viz. whether the respondents had furnished proper and satisfactory explanation for such a delay. The approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous in law and cannot be countenanced. No doubt, the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are procedural in nature and, therefore, handmaid of justice. However, that would not mean that the defendant has right to take as much time as he wants in filing the written statement, without giving convincing and cogent reasons for delay and the High Court has to condone it mechanically.” 8. However, that would not mean that the defendant has right to take as much time as he wants in filing the written statement, without giving convincing and cogent reasons for delay and the High Court has to condone it mechanically.” 8. The facts of the case in hand which is not in dispute that the petitioner nos.1 and 2/defendants had put their appearance on 22.11.2016 and 24.06.2016 respectively but not filed written statement which resulted into debarring them in filing the written statement by passing judicial order on 30.05.2017. The petitioners have filed written statement on 08.08.2017 and a petition was filed on 16.09.2017 as has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition praying therein to condone the delay in filing the written statement and the same may be accepted, upon which the impugned order has been passed. Petitioners have also annexed a petition dated 16.09.2017 as under Annexure-2/1 for recall of the order dated 30.05.2017 but no averment has been made about the fate of the petitions filed on 16.09.2017 for recall of the order dated 30.05.2017 rather learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the order debarring in filing written statement as was passed on 30.05.2017 has not been recalled. It is not in dispute that the provision as contained under Order VIII Rule 1 and 10 is procedural in nature and has been held to be not mandatory rather directory but it has been held also therein that the written statement cannot be allowed in routine manner after the expiry of the period as has been stipulated under the aforesaid provision without showing any sufficient cause for the same, otherwise there would be no purpose of the procedural law as has been inserted by the legislature under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. This Court is required to see the reason for exercising the discretionary power to condone the delay and to accept the written statement and has found from the petition filed in that respect as has been annexed as Annexure-2 that the reason has been shown at paragraph 4 thereof stating therein that the relevant documents sale deed and other documents are in custody of the relatives and the relatives reside out of station and after obtaining these documents they are filing the written statement. The aforesaid ground, according to considered view of this Court, cannot be said to be a valid reason bringing the case under the fold of exceptional hard cases. In view of the aforesaid reason shown therein the petitioners have been debarred from filing written statement vide order passed on 30.05.2017 which has not been questioned by the petitioners, although a petition has been enclosed filed on 16.09.2017 for recall of the order dated 30.05.2017 but nothing has been pleaded about the outcome of that petition and as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the order of debarring the petitioners from filing written statement as was passed on 30.05.2017 has not been recalled and hence the order is still in existence. In the aforesaid backdrop if the written statement of the petitioner would be directed to be accepted, the same would amount to overreaching the order dated 30.05.2017. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of Siddalingayya vs. Gurulingappa and Ors. reported in (2017) 9 SCC 447 but it would be evident after going across the same that the said judgment has been passed without taking into consideration the Constitution Bench judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Versus Union of India (supra) and as such the same has no binding of it, and further on the fact that the said judgment is clearly distinguishable, it is for the reason that the order debarring in filing written statement vide order dated 30.05.2017 since has not been recalled which is still in operation, direction for accepting the written statement would not be proper and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the judgment rendered in the case of Siddalingayya vs. Gurulingappa and Ors. is not applicable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon one judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 27.04.2018 in W.P.(C) No.1061 of 2013 but after going across the factual aspect, the said order is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case after the order of debarment dated 30.05.2017 having in operation. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon one judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 27.04.2018 in W.P.(C) No.1061 of 2013 but after going across the factual aspect, the said order is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case after the order of debarment dated 30.05.2017 having in operation. 11. In view of the detailed discussion hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the fact of the case is not under exceptional to direct the trial court to accept the written statement by setting aside the impugned order by giving go by to the statutory provision as contained in Order VIII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. 12. In view thereof, this case is not of such a nature, warranting any interference with the impugned order under revisable power, conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.