JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. 1. This petition challenges the order dated 12.7.2018 passed by learned 1st Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.7846 of 2015, whereby and whereunder learned trial court has accepted the written statement filed by the defendant. 2. Since the dispute lies in a narrow compass, it is not necessary to recount in detail the cases of the parties. Suffice it to say that the plaintiff-petitioner instituted the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Summons issued to the defendant fixing 11.9.2015 for appearance and file written statement. On 5.8.2015, the defendant entered appearance through its counsel. He filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of plaint. By order dated 8.9.2015, learned trial court rejected the petition. Thereafter the matter has suffered several adjournments. On 28.7.2016, the plaintiff filed an application to debar the defendant from filing the written statement and proceed with the suit. On 20.10.2016, learned trial court came to hold that the defendant has appeared in the suit. No written statement is filed within the stipulated period. Thus the defendant is precluded from filing the written statement. It granted liberty to the defendant to participate in the hearing of the suit. While the matter stood thus, the defendant filed written statement along with an application to accept the same on 29.6.2017. In the application, the defendant has assigned the following reasons in not filing the written statement in time. "Due to technical defect, the written statement has not been filed and as such, the present Advocate filed this written statement for the interest of justice, the same statement be accept. Hence this petition." By order dated 12.7.2018, learned trial court came to hold that the defendant could not properly explained the reasons for non-filing of written statement in time. If the written statement is not accepted, it will cause prejudice to the defendant. Held so, it accepted the written statement subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-. 3. Heard Mr. Bijoy Anand Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate, along with Miss Sikata Sitiratna, learned Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Brajaraj Prusty, learned Advocate, for the opposite party. 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, argued with vehemence that proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. is mandatory in nature. 3. Heard Mr. Bijoy Anand Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate, along with Miss Sikata Sitiratna, learned Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Brajaraj Prusty, learned Advocate, for the opposite party. 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, argued with vehemence that proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. is mandatory in nature. It stipulates that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the stipulated 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. He further submitted that the defendant appeared on 5.8.2015. Defendant has not filed written statement. Defendant took a calculated chance and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. to reject the plaint. The petition was rejected on 8.9.2015. Thereafter the matter has suffered several adjournments. No petition for time was filed. Thereafter, the defendant has filed an application to allow it to file written statement. Learned trial court rejected the same. The order has attained finality. No reason has been assigned in the petition to accept the written statement. Learned trial court committed a manifest illegality in accepting the written statement on 12.7.2018. The written statement was filed after lapse of two years of appearance of the defendant. To buttress the submission, he placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the cases of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others, (2003) AIR SC 3044, Kailash vs. Nanhku and others, (2005) 4 SCC 480 , M/s. R.N. Jadi and Brothers and others vs. Subhashchandra, (2007) AIR SC 2571, Mohammed Yusuf vs. Faij Mohammad and others, (2009) 3 SCC 513 , Gayathri vs. M. Girish, (2016) AIR SC 3559 and the decision of the Deli High Court in the cases of Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Prabhakar Hybrid Seeds, 2012 SCCOnLine(Del) 1256 and M/s. Omaxe Ltd. and others vs. M/s. Roma International Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 6 ILR(Del) 76. 5. Per contra, Mr. Prusty, learned Advocate for the opposite party, submitted that the previous lawyer had not taken steps. The defendant had changed the counsel. The written statement was filed along with an application to accept the same. For the latches of the counsel, the party should not suffer. 5. Per contra, Mr. Prusty, learned Advocate for the opposite party, submitted that the previous lawyer had not taken steps. The defendant had changed the counsel. The written statement was filed along with an application to accept the same. For the latches of the counsel, the party should not suffer. He placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Rafiq and another vs. Munshilal and another, (1981) AIR SC 1400. 6. Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C., which is the hub of the issue, is quoted hereunder. "1. Written Statement The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement on 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." 7. Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. was the subject matter of interpretation in Kailash. The apex Court held: "42. Ordinarily, the time schedule prescribed by Order 8 Rule 1 has to be honoured. The defendant should be vigilant. No sooner the writ of summons is served on him he should take steps for drafting his defence and filing the written statement on the appointed date of hearing without waiting for the arrival of the date appointed in the summons for his appearance in the court. The extension of time sought for by the defendant from the court whether within 30 days or 90 days, as the case may be, should not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for the asking, more so, when the period of 90 days has expired. The extension can be only by way of an exception and for reasons assigned by the defendant and also recorded in writing by the court to its satisfaction. The extension can be only by way of an exception and for reasons assigned by the defendant and also recorded in writing by the court to its satisfaction. It must be spelled out that a departure from the time schedule prescribed by Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code was being allowed to be made because the circumstances were exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and such extension was required in the interest of justice, and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. 43. A prayer seeking time beyond 90 days for filing the written statement ought to be made in writing. In its judicial discretion exercised on well-settled parameters, the court may indeed put the defendants on terms including imposition of compensatory costs and may also insist on an affidavit, medical certificate or other documentary evidence (depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case) being annexed with the application seeking extension of time so as to convince the court that the prayer was founded on grounds which do exist. 44. The extension of time shall be only by way of exception and for reasons to be recorded in writing, howsoever brief they may be, by the court. In no case, shall the defendant be permitted to seek extension of time when the court is satisfied that it is a case of laxity or gross negligence on the part of the defendant or his counsel. The court may impose costs for dual purpose: (i) to deter the defendant from seeking any extension of time just for the asking, and (ii) to compensate the plaintiff for the delay and inconvenience caused to him." 8. The same view was reiterated in M/s. R.N. Jadi and Brothers and others, Mohammed Yusuf, Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Omaxe Ltd. and others. 9. In Atcom Technologies Limited vs. Y.A. Chunawala and Company and others, (2018) 6 SCC 639 , the apex Court held: "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. 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 the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 : "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. 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." 21. In such a situation, onus upon the defendant is of a higher degree to plead and satisfactorily demonstrate a valid reason for not filing the written statement within thirty days. When that is a requirement, could it be a ground to condone delay of more than 5 years even when it is calculated from the year 2009, only because of the reason that writ of summons was not served till 2009 ? 22. .........No doubt, the provisions of Order VIII rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are procedural in nature and, therefore, hand maid 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. xxx xxx xxx" 10. 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. xxx xxx xxx" 10. An identical matter camp up for consideration in the case of M/s. SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and others,2019 SCCOnLine(SC) 226, the apex Court held that the provisions of Order VIII Rules 1 and 10 can no longer be said to be directory, but can only be said to be mandatory. It was held that as an Order VII Rule 11 application had been filed and that had to be answered before trial of the suit could commence, it was clear that a written statement could not be filed. Further Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which preserves the inherent power of the court, more particularly, that of a court of record, the High Court, and can be invoked in cases like the present where grossly unjust consequences would otherwise ensue. It was further held that a perusal of these provisions would show that ordinarily a written statement is to be filed within a period of 30 days. However, grace period of a further 90 days is granted which the court may employ for reasons to be recorded in writing and payment of such costs as it deems fit to allow such written statement to come on record. What is of great importance is the fact that beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record. This is further buttressed by the proviso in order VIII Rule 10 also adding that the court has no further power to extend the time beyond this period of 120 days. The apex Court held: "13. Several High Court judgments on the amended Order VIII Rule 1 have now held that given the consequence of non-filing of written statement, the amended provisions of the CPC will have to be held to be mandatory. [See Oku Tech Private Limited vs. Sangeet Agarwal & Ors. The apex Court held: "13. Several High Court judgments on the amended Order VIII Rule 1 have now held that given the consequence of non-filing of written statement, the amended provisions of the CPC will have to be held to be mandatory. [See Oku Tech Private Limited vs. Sangeet Agarwal & Ors. by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dated 11.08.2016 in CS (OS) No.3390/2015 as followed by several other judgments including a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Maja Cosmetics vs. Oasis Commercial Pvt. Ltd.,2018 SCCOnline(Del) 6698. 14. We are of the view that the view taken by the Delhi High Court in these judgments is correct in view of the fact that the consequence of forfeiting a right to file the written statement; non-extension of any further time; and the fact that the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record all points to the fact that the earlier law on Order VIII Rule 1 on the filing of written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 has now been set at naught. xxx xxx xxx 17. ......We are of the view that this judgment cannot be read in the manner sought for by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Order VII Rule 11 proceedings are independent of the filing of a written statement once a suit has been filed. In fact, para 6 of that judgment records "However, we may hasten to add that the liberty to file an application for rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot be made as a ruse for retrieving the lost opportunity to file the written statement." (emphasis laid) 11. Reverting to the facts of the case and keeping in view the enunciation of law laid down by the apex Court, this Court finds that on 5.8.2015, the defendant entered appearance through its counsel and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of plaint. By order dated 8.9.2015, learned trial court rejected the petition. Thereafter the matter has suffered several adjournments. On 28.7.2016, the plaintiff filed an application to debar the defendant from filing the written statement and proceed with the suit. On 20.10.2016, learned trial court precluded the defendant from filing the written statement and granted liberty to participate in the hearing of the suit. Thereafter the matter has suffered several adjournments. On 28.7.2016, the plaintiff filed an application to debar the defendant from filing the written statement and proceed with the suit. On 20.10.2016, learned trial court precluded the defendant from filing the written statement and granted liberty to participate in the hearing of the suit. While the matter stood thus, the defendant has filed written statement along with an application to accept the same on 29.6.2017. Though learned trial court came to hold that the defendant could not properly explained the reasons for non-filing of written statement in time, but accepted the written statement holding that it will cause prejudice to the defendant. The order suffers from internal inconsistencies. 12. In the application for acceptance of written statement, it is stated that due to technical defect, the written statement could not be filed. This Court fails to understand what is the "technical defect" in not filing the written statement within the stipulated time. No reason has been assigned. Further, learned trial court has rejected the application of the defendant in accepting the written statement. The order has attained finality. Proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. cannot be bypassed by an ingenious method in filing the application for rejection of plaint and protract the litigation for years. As held by the apex Court in M/s. SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. cannot be made as a ruse for retrieving the lost opportunity to file the written statement. The approach of the learned trial court is erroneous in law. The same cannot be countenanced. If the order is allowed to stand, the same would cause miscarriage of justice. 13. The decision in the case of Rafiq and another cited by learned Advocate for the opposite party is distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the apex Court held that party should not suffer for the latches of the counsel. The same principle cannot apply in Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. 14. In Surya Dev Rai, the apex Court held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. The same principle cannot apply in Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. 14. In Surya Dev Rai, the apex Court held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step into exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. There is no quarrel over the proposition of law. 15. In the wake of aforesaid, the impugned order is quashed. The defendant shall only participate in the hearing of the suit. The petition is allowed. No costs.