ORDER : Instant petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.07.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II cum L.A. Judge, Bokaro in Original Suit No.51 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the written statement which was filed after three years of service of notice, has been accepted by the learned Court below on cost of Rs.5000/-. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the defendant is State of Jharkhand and the suit has been filed for declaration of right, title and interest. The suit was filed on 06.05.2019 and notices were issued and the defendant entered into appearance on 21.06.2019. The written statement on behalf of State was filed on 05.08.2022 after lapse of more than three years which has been accepted by the impugned order. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that no reason has been assigned for condoning delay in accepting written statement and for recalling earlier order by which the defendant was debarred from filing written statement. Learned counsel has relied on the decision in the case of R.N. Jadi & Brothers & Others Versus Subhashchandra reported in (2007) 6 SCC 420 and Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall Versus Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 732 , (2020) 2 SCC 708 . 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the opposite parties- State that the delay had occasioned on the specific ground due to Covid 19 and difficulty in tracing of some of the documents in order to properly file the written statement. The reason was considered by the learned Court below although this has not been specifically mentioned in the order. 6 5. It is settled position of law that mandate of Order 8 Rule 1 is directory and not mandatory in nature and delay can be condoned for reasonable ground. The principles have laid down at length in R.N. Jadi & Brothers v. Subhashchandra; (2007) 6 SCC 420 wherein it has been held, “Order 8 Rule 1 after the amendment casts an obligation on the defendant to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him and within the extended time falling within 90 days. The provision does not deal with the power of the court and also does not specifically take away the power of the court to take the written statement on record though filed beyond the time as provided for. Further, the nature of the provision contained in Order 8 Rule 1 is procedural. It is not a part of the substantive law. Substituted Order 8 Rule 1 intends to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of cases causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs and the petitioners approaching the court for quick relief and also to the serious inconvenience of the court faced with frequent prayers for adjournments. The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. While justice delayed may amount to justice denied, justice hurried may in some cases amount to justice buried. 10. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice”. 6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order accepting the written statement of the State, subject to the condition of payment of cost. State entered into appearance in the year 2019 and thereafter the disruption caused due to Covid pandemic is no secret. State represents the collective, and it will not be in the interest of justice to debar the State from filing the written statement which is not going to cause any prejudice to the plaintiff. Considering, the submissions on behalf of both the parties and the facts and circumstance of instant case, I do not deem it proper to interfere in the impugned order. This civil miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.