JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 22.11.2017 passed in Money Suit No.09 of 2003 by Sub-Judge-IV, Giridih has been assailed whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the defendant, the petitioner herein, on 15.02.2017 for recall of the order dated 23.07.2004 has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that the petitioner who happens to be a partnership firm is a defendant in the money suit filed by the Secretary Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand being Money Suit No.09 of 2003 in which without valid service of summons the case has been posted for ex-parte proceeding and after appearance an application has been filed on 13.06.2005 under Order IX Rule 7 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 23.07.2004 but no order has been passed therein. 3. The petitioner has also filed a petition on 08.09.2005 which was disposed of on 02.09.2016 by rejecting the same as not pressed by the defendant and again a petition has been filed on 15.02.2017 for recall of the order dated 23.07.2004 and to accept the written statement filed on 03.01.2017 but the trial court without appreciating aforesaid aspect of the matter more particularly, nondisposal of the petition filed under Order IX Rule 7 of the C.P.C. dated 13.06.2005 has rejected the petition filed on 15.02.2017 on the ground that the petition has been filed after lapse of 12 years. 4. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suit is in the nature of money suit and as such the written statement is necessary to be filed otherwise the case of the petitioner will seriously be prejudiced. 5. He has contended that when a petition has been filed under Order IX Rule 7 on 13.06.2005, the trial court ought to have passed an order but having not done so the material irregularity has been done but the trial court in spite of taking it into consideration, has rejected the petition filed on 15.02.2017, therefore, the impugned order suffers from patent illegality and hence is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Sr. 6. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Sr. SC-III appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that as per the statutory provision the written statement has to be filed maximum within a period of 120 days as would appear from the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 (1) of CPC but having not done so the petitioner even though has put his appearance on 13.06.2005 has not filed written statement rather the written statement has been filed after lapse of almost about 12 years i.e., on 03.01.2017 and hence the trial court while passing the order of rejecting the petition dated 15.02.2017 has committed no illegality. 7. He has submitted with respect to the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner about non-disposal of the petition filed under Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C. that the reason for nondisposal of the petition has never been pressed and in spite of pressing the same, a petition has been filed on 08.09.2005 which remained pending till 02.09.2016 but has been disposed of since it was not pressed by the defendant, as such the petitioner is proceeding with very casual approach which is nothing but complete disobedience of the statutory provision for filing the written statement within a statutory period. 8. It has further been contended that the matter was posted for argument and due to various petitions which are being filed by the petitioner, the suit of 2003 is not being disposed of and taking into consideration the said aspect of the matter, the order impugned may not be interfered with. 9. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions as also the findings recorded in the impugned order, deem it fit and proper to first refer the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, which reads hereunder as: "1.Written Statement. 9. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions as also the findings recorded in the impugned order, deem it fit and proper to first refer the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, which reads hereunder as: "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 written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deem it, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons the defendants shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record." From the above provision, it is evident that Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. provides that the defendant shall file written statement within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within thirty days from the date of summons upon him, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing but shall not be later than 90 days from the date of expiry of 30 days. The provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. was subject matter of judgment rendered in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court while laying down the proposition about mandatory or obligatory nature of the time schedule has been pleased to hold that the Court has wide power to "make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit", 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. Therefore, if the sufficient reason would be shown in order to get ends of substantial justice, the time schedule can be extended. 10. Under the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. the mandatory period for filing written statement is within a period of 30 days in which the defendant can be allowed to file the written statement on such other day as may be specified by the court for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the court deems fit but which shall not be later than 120 days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment rendered in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. vs. Union of India (supra) that for accepting the written statement no strict view is to be taken but that depends upon the facts and circumstances of each and every case. 11. The undisputed fact in this case is that the suit has been filed on 03.09.2003, admitted on 16.09.2003, summons have been issued on 05.01.2004/19.01.2004, order for ex-parte proceeding has been passed on 23.07.2004 and thereafter case was posted for evidence. After conclusion of the evidence the argument has started and done on 10.03.2005, 22.03.2005 and 13.06.2005. It is further admitted that a petition has been filed under Order IX Rule 7 r/w Section 151 of CPC on 13.06.2005 for setting aside the ex-parte order. Again a petition was filed by the petitioner on 08.09.2005 which was disposed of as not pressed vide order dated 02.09.2016 and thereafter the defendant has left taking steps since 09.09.2015. The petitioner thereafter has again filed a petition on 15.02.2017 for recall of the order dated 23.07.2004 and permit him to file written statement in which the plaintiff has filed his rejoinder on 29.08.2017, further another petition was filed on 13.06.2005 after one year of the order of ex-parte proceeding on 23.07.2004. The petitioner thereafter has again filed a petition on 15.02.2017 for recall of the order dated 23.07.2004 and permit him to file written statement in which the plaintiff has filed his rejoinder on 29.08.2017, further another petition was filed on 13.06.2005 after one year of the order of ex-parte proceeding on 23.07.2004. The order further reflects that in the recall petition dated 13.06.2005 no cogent reason for evoking the ex-parte order has been stated, therefore, from the aforesaid fact it is clear that the petitioner although has filed a petition for recall of the ex-parte order dated 23.07.2004 but has not moved and again during its pendency another petition was filed on 08.09.2005 which has also not been moved fairly for a long period for about 11 years and on 02.09.2016 the same has been not pressed and accordingly, the said petition was rejected and thereafter on 03.01.2017 written statement has been filed and subsequent thereto a petition has been filed on 15.02.2017 for recall of the order dated 23.07.2004 i.e., after lapse of almost more than 12 years. From these dates, it appears that the petitioner is very casual in pursuing the suit and due to his laches the suit of 2003 has remained pending for a period of 12 years. 12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petition since has been filed under Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C. on 13.06.2005 therefore, it ought to have been disposed of but the question herein is that immediately after the said petition filed on 13.06.2005 having not been moved, a separate petition was filed on 08.09.2005 which has not been pressed, therefore, contention which is being raised about disposal of petition filed under Order IX Rule 7 is not fit to be acceptable. 13. Although it has been laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court that there should not be any strict principle in not extending the time to file written statement but simultaneously in the Salem Advocate Bar Association''s case it has also been laid down that the extension of time for filing written statement should not be in a routine manner, meaning thereby, the settled position of law is to be tested on the facts and circumstances of each and every case. 14. 14. This Court, therefore, is of the view that fault lies on the part of the petitioner as stated hereinabove and if the trial court has rejected the petition taking into consideration such factual aspect, the same cannot be said to suffer from any illegality warranting any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. In view thereof, the writ petition fails and stands dismissed.