ORDER : The petitioners who are the defendant Nos.2 and 3 before the trial Court have assailed the order of the trial Court rejecting the application filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to file written statement. 2. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 have filed the application seeking permission to file written statement and have stated that they were not residing in India and hence, there was some delay in filing the written statement. No doubt the application was filed after a period of 2 years from the date of filing of vakalath but the defendants contend that in light of the facts as made out that they were residing outside the Country, they were not in a position to file the written statement in time. 3. The trial Court while rejecting the application has observed that each days delay was not explained and the application filed was belated and sufficient opportunity given to the defendants was not made use of and has rejected the application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on merits the case that is made out is defendant Nos.2 and 3 have purchased their property through a sale deed dated 09.10.2013 and that they were bonafide purchasers for value and their substantive rights are in issue which would be defeated if they are not permitted to take their defense. It is further submitted that in light of the defendants having purchased the property the owner himself i.e., defendant No.3 may not evince any interest in defending the suit diligently and accordingly it is necessary that their defence is put forward. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of C.N.Ramappa Gowda v/s C.C.Chandregowda (dead) by LR’s and another reported in (2012) 5 SCC 265 and contends that provisions relating to the filing of the written statement within the prescribed time is directory and not mandatory. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. The trial Court has adopted a hyper technical approach while rejecting the application seeking permission to file the written statement. The trial Court has observed that there has been delay and sufficient opportunity being granted to the defendants, and that the said opportunity was not made use of. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. The trial Court has adopted a hyper technical approach while rejecting the application seeking permission to file the written statement. The trial Court has observed that there has been delay and sufficient opportunity being granted to the defendants, and that the said opportunity was not made use of. The Apex Court in the case of Kailash v/s Nanhku & Others reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 has observed that the provisions under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC is directory and procedural and cannot be held to be mandatory. In the present case, the Court also ought to have taken note of the fact that the owner of the property has also not filed his written statement and that the case that is made out by defendant Nos.2 and 3 was that they were bonafide purchasers for value and were seeking to rely on the registered sale deed. The trial Court also ought to have taken note of the fact that the written statement was infact filed along with application and that the suit was still in the initial stage. 8. Taking note of the fact that delay by itself does not in any way prejudice the plaintiff and also in the peculiar facts of the case noticing that the 3rd defendant has not filed his written statement, it is a fit case for allowing of the application subject to reasonable cost. 9. Accordingly, taking note of the legal position as discussed that under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC, filing of the written statement is not mandatory and also taking note of the peculiar facts of the case as noticed above, the impugned order is set aside and the application to permit the written statement to be filed is allowed and the written statement is directed to be taken on record. 10. It is also noticed that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/pursuant to the order dated 11.11.2016, the said amount deposited is to be treated as costs payable to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. The plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit made by the defendants.