ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 04.10.2018, whereby the Court below has refused to take written statement on record as the same was filed beyond the period of 90 days. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had engaged a lawyer to appear in the Civil Court after receipt of notices and as such Vakalatnama was filed on her behalf on 09.01.2018. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner moved an application to provide copy of document (Map), which was not annexed with the suit and finally the same was supplied to the petitioner on 05.04.2018. 4. Learned counsel submitted that after 05.04.2018, the next date was fixed on 24.05.2018 and counsel for the petitioner could not file the written statement due to unavoidable circumstances and on the next date i.e. on 04.07.2018, the Court below has refused to take the written statement on record. 5. Learned counsel submitted that there has been no intention of delaying the said proceedings and the period prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC of filing written statement is only directory and if the sufficient reasons are given before the Court below, the Court can permit filing of written statement even after the period of 90 days. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Desh Raj Vs. Balkishan (Dead) through Proposed Legal Representative Ms. Rohini reported in (2020) 2 SCC 708 . 7. Learned counsel on the strength of the said judgment submitted that timeline of filing written statement in noncommercial matter is directory and as such this Court in the interest of justice may grant one opportunity to the petitioner to file written statement. 8. Learned counsel Mr.Mahesh Gupta, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition. 9. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below has rightly refused to take written statement on record and the petitioner was required to file written statement within a period of 90 days from the date of service. 10. Learned counsel submitted that the non-petitioner, who has filed the suit for eviction of petitioner will be deprived of right to get the possession if the petitioner intends to delay the proceedings. 11. 10. Learned counsel submitted that the non-petitioner, who has filed the suit for eviction of petitioner will be deprived of right to get the possession if the petitioner intends to delay the proceedings. 11. This Court finds that in normal course, the defendant is required to file written statement within a period of 90 days after receipt of the summons to appear before the Court, however, if the proper explanation is given to the Court, the Court after considering the entire facts, can extend the time of filing of written statement and the provision contained in Order 8 Rule 1 CPC has not been held to be mandatory by the Apex Court expect in cases of commercial nature. 12. This Court finds that in the present case, initially the petitioner faced difficulty in not getting the complete papers along-with the map, which was filed by the non-petitioner later on and she being a lady was not able to collect the relevant facts for providing it to her lawyer to file written statement. 13. This Court in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court finds that interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is granted one more opportunity to file her written statement on the next date of hearing. The petitioner would be required to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to non-petitioner on the next date, which is already fixed before the Court below. 14. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of, with a direction to the petitioner to file written statement on the next date of hearing with a cost of Rs.5,000/- before the Court below. The orders passed by the Court below dated 04.07.2018 & 04.10.2018, are quashed and set aside.