JUDGMENT 1. By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order dated 07-12-2019 passed in Civil Suit No. 8A-2017 by Civil Judge Class-I, Sendhwa, District Badwani whereby application under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC filed by him for closing the right of defendant/respondent for filing its written statement has been rejected. 2. Facts of the case are that on 27-02-2017 the plaintiff instituted an action for declaration and permanent injunction. Upon service of summons upon it the defendant entered appearance before the trial Court on 02-03-2017 and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint which was rejected on 07-03-2017 fixing the case for 15-03-2017 for filing of written statement. Thereafter time was again granted to defendant to file the written statement. It had also raised an objection as regards maintainability of the suit under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which objection was also turned down. Time was granted to defendant to file written statement. Thereafter the Court was vacant and subsequently defendant again prayed for and was granted time for filing the written statement. Being aggrieved by the order rejecting its application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC the defendant preferred Civil Revision No. 87/2017 before this Court in which by order dated 30-08-2017 further proceedings of the suit were stayed. The defendant also preferred an appeal before the Second Additional District Judge against rejection of its objection as regards maintainability of the suit under the provisions of the Act, 1996 in which the record of the Civil Suit was requisitioned. The case was then fixed awaiting record of the case from 15-09-2017 upto 20-06-2018. 3. In the meanwhile on 13-07-2017 the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC for closing the right of defendant to file its written statement. During pendency of the application the written statement was filed by the defendant on 14-03-2018. It also filed its reply to the application on 07-09-2019 submitting that it had every hope of success in the Civil Revision preferred by it against the order passed by the trial Court and believed that plaint would be rejected hence did not file its written statement at that time. It also filed its reply to the application on 07-09-2019 submitting that it had every hope of success in the Civil Revision preferred by it against the order passed by the trial Court and believed that plaint would be rejected hence did not file its written statement at that time. The further proceedings of the suit had been stayed by this Court by order dated 09-08-2017 in the Civil Revision and the record of the case had also been called for by the Second Additional District Judge in appeal preferred by it under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 against order of the trial Court. Before the record was received back it filed the written statement. It was further submitted that written statement could not be filed within time in anticipation of result of proceedings taken by it before the superior Courts. It was hence submitted that the delay in filing the written statement deserves to be condoned particularly when the same has already come on record. 4. By the impugned order plaintiff's application has been rejected by the trial Court by observing that the reasons as furnished by defendant for the delay in filing the written statement are bonafide and proper, that the period of ninety days as provided for under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC for filing of written statement is directory and not mandatory and that a litigant should get opportunity to put forth his case and should not be denied the opportunity merely on technical grounds. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction. The delay in filing the written statement was substantially huge and could not have been condoned as written statement was filed beyond period of ninety days. The reasons as have been given by the trial Court are not legally justifiable. No application was filed by defendant for condonation of delay in filing the written statement hence the delay could not have been condoned. Reliance has been placed by him on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kailash Vs. Nanhku and others, 2005(4) SCC 480 , Salem Advocate Bar Association T.N Vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 , R.N. JADI & Brothers and others, (2007) 6 SCC 420 and of Delhi High Court in Okay Play India Pvt., Ltd., Vs. A.P. Distributors and another, 2021 SCC Online Delhi 4043. Nanhku and others, 2005(4) SCC 480 , Salem Advocate Bar Association T.N Vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 , R.N. JADI & Brothers and others, (2007) 6 SCC 420 and of Delhi High Court in Okay Play India Pvt., Ltd., Vs. A.P. Distributors and another, 2021 SCC Online Delhi 4043. 6. Learned counsel for defendant submits that defendant had taken proceedings under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the appellate Court and had also preferred Civil Revision before this Court against order rejecting its application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and had every hope of success in the same hence could not file the written statement within time. Defendant has already filed the written statement which is on record hence the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting plaintiff's application. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 8. The defendant had appeared on 02-03-2017 before the Trial Court and had on that date itself filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint. It had also raised objection as regards maintainability of the suit under the provisions of the Act, 1996. On its application being rejected by the Trial Court it had challenged the order before the revisional/appellate Court. The appeal preferred by defendant was entertained by the appellate Court and record of the case was called for. In Civil Revision preferred by defendant before this Court further proceedings of the trial Court had been stayed. Prior to dismissal of the Civil Revision, the defendant had filed its written statement before the trial Court. 9. While it is true that mere pendency of appeal preferred by defendant before the appellate Court and Civil Revision before this Court did not preclude the defendant from filing its written statement, but it is equally true that record of the trial Court was not available for a considerable period of time and its further proceedings had also been stayed by this Court. Thus, even if defendant had not filed its written statement in the meantime no prejudice had been caused to the plaintiff. Written statement was infact filed prior to dismissal of Civil Revision by this Court pursuant to which the order staying further proceedings before the trial Court came to an end. Thus, even if defendant had not filed its written statement in the meantime no prejudice had been caused to the plaintiff. Written statement was infact filed prior to dismissal of Civil Revision by this Court pursuant to which the order staying further proceedings before the trial Court came to an end. Thus, when proceedings commenced subsequent to vacation of stay the written statement of defendant was already on record. 10. In Kailash (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a prayer seeking time beyond ninety days for filing the written statement ought to be made in writing. It does not necessarily mandate that such prayer in writing should only be by way of an application filed by defendant for extension of time for filing the written statement. The same has only to be made in writing. If plaintiff had made an application for closing the right of defendant to file the written statement and if defendant had filed the written statement and had thereafter in reply to plaintiff's application made prayer for extension of time for filing the written statement the same would be sufficient compliance of provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC. Such a prayer made in reply to plaintiff's application can very well be considered to be a prayer made in writing. 11. It is the discretion of the trial Court to extend the time to file the written statement beyond the period of ninety days and the same should be exercised in exceptionally hard cases and not in frequent or routine manner. The same has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Selam Advocate Bar Association (supra) and R.N. Jaitey and Brothers (supra). In the present case proceedings were pending before the appellate/revisional Court taking note of which fact the trial Court has recorded reasons for condoning the delay in filing the written statement and has not condoned it in a routine manner. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Selam Advocate Bar Association (supra) has held that the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC are not mandatory but are directory in nature. The trial Court has recorded reasons for condoning the delay in filing the written statement hence it cannot be said that it has condoned the delay in a routine manner. 13. The trial Court has recorded reasons for condoning the delay in filing the written statement hence it cannot be said that it has condoned the delay in a routine manner. 13. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I do no find any error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting plaintiff's application for closing the right of defendant to file the written statement. The impugned order is hence perfectly just and legal. Petition being without merit is hereby dismissed.