JUDGMENT : Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. 1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner (defendant in the suit) challenging an order dated 22.08.2018 (impugned order) passed by the learned District Judge, Special Division-II at Gangtok (learned District Judge) in Money Suit No. 30 of 2017 (the suit) by which the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the application) filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of the delay in filing written statement was rejected. 2. The learned District Judge was of the view that the delay was inordinate and the explanation unacceptable. In the learned District Judge’s opinion apart from gross negligence and laxity there is nothing to suggest that the Petitioner could not file the written statement in spite of its best efforts. 3. Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is the relevant provision and reads as under: “ORDER VIII 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.” 4. The defendant is required to present a written statement of his defence within a period of 30 days from the service of summons on him. Where the defendants fails to file the written statement within the said period of 30 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 90 days from the date of service of summons. 5. The provision quoted above has been examined by the Supreme Court in its various judgments and is no longer res integra. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon in re: Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 480 ; Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344 and Zolba v. Keshao & Ors. (2008) 11 SCC 769 . The learned District Judge has also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in re: Kailash (supra). (2005) 4 SCC 480 ; Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344 and Zolba v. Keshao & Ors. (2008) 11 SCC 769 . The learned District Judge has also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in re: Kailash (supra). 6. The ratio of the above judgments is that the provision is procedural and directory. It would be open to the Court to permit the defendant to file his written statement beyond the prescribed period of 30 days and 90 days if exceptional circumstances have been made out. 7. In fact Mr. Sudhir Prasad, learned Counsel for the Respondent (Plaintiff in the suit) was also of the view that written statement can be accepted by the Court beyond the time permitted only in exceptional circumstances. It was his case that such of the facts placed before the learned District Judge could not be considered as exceptional. The learned Counsel for the Respondent also submitted that the Petitioner had failed to explain the delay day to day. 8. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has conferred the power to condone delay in order that the Courts could do substantial justice. The expression “sufficient cause” is sufficiently elastic. The Supreme Court has been adopting a justifiable liberal approach while examining cases for condonation of delay. The doctrine of seeking day to day explanation of the delay must be applied in a pragmatic manner and the Court should not have a pedantic approach. Substantial justice must be preferred to technical considerations. The Court must avoid any presumption that the delay is deliberate and the negligence culpable. A justice oriented approach would be the right approach in examining whether or not to condone delay. 9. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Therefore, it has also been held in re: Zolba (supra) that unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC should not be construed in a manner, which would lead the Court helpless to meet extraordinarily situation in the ends of justice. 10. Having examined the law it would be necessary to consider the facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition. These facts are not in dispute. 11. On 27.10.2017 the Petitioner was served the summons from the Court. 10. Having examined the law it would be necessary to consider the facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition. These facts are not in dispute. 11. On 27.10.2017 the Petitioner was served the summons from the Court. 30 days for filing the written statement would thus end on 26.11.2017. If the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC was to be applied the 90 days period would expire on 25.01.2018. Admittedly, no application for extension of time was filed by the Petitioner on or before the expiry of the 30 days period i.e. 26.11.2017. Nevertheless, the record of the orders passed by the learned District Judge reflects that on 30.10.2017 time was granted to the Petitioner to file written statement on or before 13.11.2017. The order dated 13.11.2017 reflects that the Advocate for the Petitioner sought time for filing written statement till 18.11.2017 on the ground that the conducting Counsel was mourning the death of a close relative. The ground was considered and time was granted till 18.11.2017 by the learned District Judge. On 28.11.2017 the Petitioner was represented by a proxy advocate who pleaded that the advocate for the Petitioner had to suddenly go out of station to attend important matters and sought further time to file the written statement. This ground was also considered and time granted till 18.12.2017. The order dated 18.12.2017 reflects that the advocate for the Petitioner was not present and notice was issued to the Petitioner returnable on 13.02.2018. On 13.02.2018 the advocates for the parties sought adjournment as the matter was likely to be amicably settled. Accordingly time was granted till 28.02.2018. On 28.02.2018 the advocate for the Petitioner expressed her intention to retire from the case. However, since the Petitioner was absent the retirement was not considered on the date and the Petitioner was directed to appear on 09.03.2018. On 09.03.2018 the advocate for the Petitioner submitted that she had informed the Petitioner about her intention to retire but no intimation has been received from the Petitioner. The learned District Judge considered and issued notice to the Petitioner returnable on 15.03.2018. On 15.03.2018 as notice to the Petitioner had not returned, on the request of the advocate for the Respondent, a fresh notice was issued. The learned District Judge considered and issued notice to the Petitioner returnable on 15.03.2018. On 15.03.2018 as notice to the Petitioner had not returned, on the request of the advocate for the Respondent, a fresh notice was issued. On 04.04.2018 another advocate filed his vakalatnama and prayed for a short date to take appropriate steps in the matter which was considered and granted till 11.04.2018. On 11.04.2018 the advocate for the Petitioner sought for further time to take steps as he was out of station and necessary instructions from the Petitioner could not be obtained. The same was considered by the learned District Judge and time was granted till 17.04.2018. On 17.04.2018 an application for adjournment was filed by the advocate for the Petitioner on the ground that the Branch Manager was out of station and hence he could not take instructions for taking steps. This was also considered and allowed by the learned District Judge but as a final opportunity. The matter was posted to 03.05.2018 for taking steps. On 03.05.2018 the advocate for the Petitioner sought for further time on the same ground that the Branch Manager has been out of station since the month before. The learned District Judge imposed cost but considered the oral prayer and granted time till 19.05.2018. On 19.05.2018 the advocates for the Petitioner expressed their desire to retire from the case due to personal reasons. The reasons were considered and the advocates were allowed to withdraw their vakalatnama. The advocates for the Petitioner undertook to inform the Petitioner about the next date of hearing which was posted on 05.06.2018. On 05.06.2018 yet another advocate appeared on behalf of the Petitioner and undertook to file his vakalatnama on the next date. The advocate for the Petitioner sought a weeks’ time to file application seeking leave to file the written statement. The matter was posted to 15.06.2018 after the learned District Judge considered and allowed the Petitioner’s prayer for further time. On 15.06.2018 the advocate for the Petitioner filed the application for condonation of delay and prayed that the written statement as well as counter claim may be placed on record. The Respondent sought time to file objection to the application and the matter was therefore posted to 05.07.2018. On 05.07.2018 an adjournment was sought for by the Respondent as the reply could not be filed. The Respondent sought time to file objection to the application and the matter was therefore posted to 05.07.2018. On 05.07.2018 an adjournment was sought for by the Respondent as the reply could not be filed. This was considered and allowed and the matter posted to 21.07.2018. On 21.07.2018 the Petitioner once again sought time on the personal ground of the Respondent’s advocate which was considered and time allowed till 09.08.2018. On 09.08.2018 the application for condonation of delay was heard at length and matter posted for orders on 22.08.2018 on which date the impugned order rejecting the application for condonation of delay was passed by the learned District Judge. 12. The orders reflect that on every occasion time was sought on various grounds, considered and granted by the learned District Judge. It also reveals that during this period several advocates came on record on behalf of the Petitioner and retired with the leave of the Court. 13. Some of these facts have been narrated in the application. In any case these facts are clearly reflected in the orders passed by the learned District Judge from time to time. The same have been placed on record in the present proceedings with the leave of the Court. The Petitioner has also pleaded in the application that they had entrusted the matter for defending its case to various advocates but due to communication gap and lack of instructions the Petitioner was not able to file the written statement. A perusal of the said orders reflect that each of the advocates save the last retired from the case before getting a firm grip of the case. The records also reveal that time was sought for filing written statement more on the personal grounds of the learned advocates for the Petitioner. In the confusion of the advocate seeking time to take necessary steps and in not being able to do so due to their personal reasons time which started running did not stop and in the process there has been an admitted delay of 138 days. The learned District Judge has calculated the period between 27.10.2017 and 15.06.2018 i.e. the day the Petitioner filed the written statement and subtracted 90 days there from to arrive at the figure of 138 days delay. The learned District Judge has calculated the period between 27.10.2017 and 15.06.2018 i.e. the day the Petitioner filed the written statement and subtracted 90 days there from to arrive at the figure of 138 days delay. The learned District Judge has not considered the fact that time for filing written statement had been extended by the Court after considering the grounds on several dates till 05.06.2018. Thereafter the learned District Judge had granted time to the Petitioner to file application for condonation of delay on 15.06.2018. Pursuant thereto time was granted to the Respondent to file objections till 09.08.2018. 14. A perusal of the orders does not reflect that the Petitioner was guilty of adopting any delaying tactics. In fact, this was neither the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent nor the opinion of the learned District Judge. Time should not be granted as a matter of routine and merely for the asking. However, when the learned District Judge has considered those grounds and thought it fit to grant extension of time again and again the same cannot be said to be gross negligence while considering the application for condonation of delay filed subsequently. While considering the application it was necessary for the learned District Judge to have taken into account the fact, as reflected in the various orders, that the Court had considered each of the said grounds for extension on each separate occasion and granted the same. If sufficient cause is shown or is reflected in the records of the case a more liberal approach must be adopted to ensure that a party in the adversarial system of justice dispensation is not denied the opportunity of participating in it. This Court is therefore, unable to agree with the conclusion that there has been an inordinate delay and the reasons are unacceptable. The delay cannot be attributable to the Petitioner alone. Sufficient cause for condoning the delay was also reflected in the orders passed by the learned District Judge. The learned District has rightly held that the object behind Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of the case much to the chagrin of the Plaintiffs. However, the record of the present case does not reflect such unscrupulous dilatory tactics being adopted by the Petitioner. The learned District has rightly held that the object behind Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of the case much to the chagrin of the Plaintiffs. However, the record of the present case does not reflect such unscrupulous dilatory tactics being adopted by the Petitioner. Rightly again the learned District Judge has not come to a finding that the Petitioner was unscrupulous in its approach and was adopting dilatory tactics. The frequent retirement of advocates during the period when the Petitioner was required to file the written statement and the grant of several extensions beyond the statutory period by the learned District Judge would make it an exceptional case in favour of the Petitioner while considering the application. This Court is satisfied that the reasons pleaded in the application and also reflected in the various orders passed by the learned District Judge from time to time in support of the prayer for extension of time were sufficient. It would also be in the interest of justice and fairness that the suit is decided on the merits of the case by permitting the written statement filed by the Petitioner. 15. In view of the aforesaid, the Civil Revision Petition No. 02 of 2019 is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.08.2018 is set aside. The learned District Judge shall accept the written statement filed on 15.06.2018 and proceed with the case in accordance with the law. 16. A copy of the judgement shall be forwarded to the Court of the learned District Judge, Special Division-II at Gangtok forthwith.