JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.2.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Agra dismissing Civil Revision No. 4 of 2008 and orders dated 20/21.11.2017 and 3.5.2019 passed by the trial court. 2. The fact of the case are alarming. The plaintiff-respondent instituted Suit No. 703 of 2003 against the petitioners for permanent prohibitory injunction. The defendants were duly served with summons on 25.04.2004. They did not file written statement within 30 days as contemplated under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. They also did not file written statement within further period of 90 days. They filed the written statement on 10.2.2005 i.e. much after the expiry of statutory period prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. The plaintiff objected to the filing of the written statement beyond statutory period and whereupon, the defendant-petitioners filed an application 62-Ga dated 23.10.2007 for condoning delay in filing the written statement. In the application, the petitioners stated that they had filed WS without unnecessary delay. They also stated that negligible delay, if any, in filing the written statement be condoned. The trial court by order dated 20/21.11.2017 relying on judgment of Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku and Others, 2005 AIR(SC) 2441 and other judgments following the said judgment, rejected the application 62-Ga filed by the petitioners for condoning the delay in filing written statement and directed for proceedings being held as per Order 8 Rule 10 C.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 4 of 2008. The same was dismissed by order dated 28.2.2009. The petitioner did not challenge the order of the Revisional Court before any higher court but instead, filed an application 127-Ga for review of the order dated 20/21.11.2007. The petitioners succeeded in getting the proceedings of the suit delayed on basis of the said application for twelve years. The application has ultimately been dismissed by the trial court by order dated 3.5.2019. 3. The sole submission made by Shri M.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the court below erred in refusing to take on record the written statement. It is urged that there was delay of only few days and therefore, the courts below ought to have taken the written statement on record, as the interest of the plaintiff could be safeguarded by imposing cost. It is urged that there was delay of only few days and therefore, the courts below ought to have taken the written statement on record, as the interest of the plaintiff could be safeguarded by imposing cost. It is also urged that provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. are only directory in nature and therefore, the courts ought not to have taken a technical view in the matter. 4. In Kailash (supra), the Supreme Court though held that provision of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. being in the realm of procedural law is directory in nature but also held that delay in filing written statement cannot be condoned as a matter of course but only by way of exception. In this regard, the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 45 (v) reads as under: "Though Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is a part of procedural law and hence directory, keeping in view the need for expeditious trial of civil causes which persuaded Parliament to enact the provision in its present form, it is held that ordinarily the time schedule contained in the provision is to be followed as a rule and departure therefrom would be by way of exception. A prayer for extension of time made by the defendant shall not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for the asking, more so when the period of 90 days has expired. Extension of time may be allowed by way of an exception, for reasons to be assigned by the defendant and also be placed on record in writing, howsoever briefly, by the Court on its being satisfied. Extension of time may be allowed if it is needed to be given for circumstances which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. Costs may be imposed and affidavit or documents in support of the grounds pleaded by the defendant for extension of time may be demanded, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case." 5. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioners seeking condonation of delay reveals that it does not disclose any ground whatsoever for getting the delay condoned. The application only mentions that if there is any delay, the same be condoned. 6. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioners seeking condonation of delay reveals that it does not disclose any ground whatsoever for getting the delay condoned. The application only mentions that if there is any delay, the same be condoned. 6. In considered opinion of the Court, in absence of any explanation, the case does not fall within the exception carved out by the Supreme Court. The Supreme court has held that the extension of time will be allowed in exceptional circumstances occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant. 7. In such view of the matter, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned orders passed by courts below declining to take written statement on record. 8. It is noteworthy that the issue in question came to be raised soon after filing of the written statement but the petitioners have succeeded in delaying the proceedings of the suit on basis of the said plea for considerable period. They filed review application against the order of the trial court, which had already been upheld in revision. Again, on basis of review application, they succeeded in getting the proceedings delayed for almost fifteen years, thus defeating the very object with which time limit is provided under Order 8, Rule 1 C.P.C. Such conduct on part of a litigant is highly deplorable. 9. Having regard to the facts of the case, the instant petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-