ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.02.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Nimbaheda, Chittorgarh in C.O. 40/2023 (Jagdish Chandra v Amarchand), whereby petitioner's right to file the written statement has been closed and ex-parte proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. 2. The writ petition has been preferred with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing an appropriate writ, order, or direction, (i) The order dated 13.02.2024 (Annex. P/2), passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Nimbaheda, Chittorgarh, in C.O.40/2023 (Jagdish Chandra v. Amarchand) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be granted sufficient time to file written statement and the ex parte proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner may also be set aside. (ii) Any other order favorable to the Petitioner may also be passed. (iii) Cost of the writ petition may be awarded” 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent no. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against the petitioner/defendant and respondent/defendant no. 2 and 3 on 24.07.2023 (Annex. P/1), in pursuance to an agreement to sale dated 29.06.2019, and the sale deed was to be executed by 26.04.2020, however as the suit property was mortgaged with State Bank of India by the respondent no. 1, the petitioner failed to take steps to redeem the suit property. 4. Thereafter, on 13.02.2024 (Annex.P/2), learned Trial Court closed the petitioner's right to file a written statement and ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Subsequently, on 15.07.2024 (Annex.P/3), learned Trial Court framed the issues for consideration and thereafter an affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 1 under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'). 5. Thus, aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Trial Court, dated 13.02.2024 (Annex.P/2), closing the petitioner's right to file the written statements, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a limited submission that he may be granted one last opportunity to file written statements, while imposing a cost upon the petitioner. 5. Thus, aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Trial Court, dated 13.02.2024 (Annex.P/2), closing the petitioner's right to file the written statements, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a limited submission that he may be granted one last opportunity to file written statements, while imposing a cost upon the petitioner. He also submits that in the absence of any written statements filed on behalf of the petitioner, the issues have been framed without considering the case of the petitioner, causing serious prejudice to the petitioner, and therefore, the order dated 13.02.2024 (Annex.P/2) passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Heard and perused material on record. 8. This Court finds that the suit for specific performance and permanent and mandatory injunction was filed on 24.07.2023 (Annex.P/1), and the first appearance of the petitioner was marked by the learned Trial Court on 14.09.2023, wherein the petitioner had sought time from the learned Trial Court to file written statements. The suit was further listed on 22.11.2023, whereby the learned Trial Court had adjourned the matter and listed the same on 17.01.2024. However, on 17.01.2024, on account of leave taken by the Presiding Officer, the matter was posted on 13.02.2024, for filing written statements and the status quo was ordered to be maintained. Thus, this Court finds that even on 17.01.2024, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to file his written statements, however, he failed to do so and thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly closed his right to file written statements. 9. Furthermore, this Court is conscious of the fact that Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC stipulates that the defendant shall file his written statement within a period of thirty days and in case the defendant fails to do so within a period of thirty days, then he shall be allowed to file his written statement within 120 days from the date of service of summons, on payment of such costs as the Court deems it fit, along with the reasons to be recorded in writing. The relevant provision reads as under: “ORDER VIII [Written statement, set-off and counter-claim] [1. The relevant provision reads as under: “ORDER VIII [Written statement, set-off and counter-claim] [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.] [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 written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.]” This Court also takes into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Desh Raj v Balkishan (D) through Proposed Lrs, [Civil Appeal No. 433 of 2020, decided on 20.01.2020], whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically observed that while condoning the delay in filing the written statement, the Court should take into account that the defendant had established the fact that it was beyond his control despite proactive deligence to comply with the procedural mandate and that, it is also substantiated by a reasoned justification or explanation, which led to the failure in filing his written statements in prescribed time period. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Desh Raj (Supra), are reproduced as follows: “16. However, it would be gainsaid that although the unamended Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is directory, it cannot be interpreted to bestow a free hand to on any litigant or lawyer to file written statement at their own sweet will and/ or to prolong the lis. However, it would be gainsaid that although the unamended Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is directory, it cannot be interpreted to bestow a free hand to on any litigant or lawyer to file written statement at their own sweet will and/ or to prolong the lis. The legislative objective behind prescription of timelines under the CPC must be given due weightage so that the disputes are resolved in a time bound manner. Inherent discretion of Courts, like the ability to condone delays under Order VIII Rule 1 is a fairly defined concept and its contours have been shaped through judicial decisions over the ages. Illustratively, extreme hardship or delays occurring due to factors beyond control of parties despite proactive diligence, may be just and equitable instances for condonation of delay. Xxxx 19. The only defence taken to these repeated and blatant lapses is that the appellant’s counsel was not turning up. No attempt has been made to even proffer a reasoned justification or explanation, and it is clear that appellant is seeking condonation in a casual manner. This ought not to be permitted or encouraged. Courts must act stringently to ensure that all proceedings are decided within reasonable time, and it is but the duty of the judicial system to cultivate a culture of respecting deadlines and time of the Court, its officers as well as of adversaries. 20. Routine condonations and cavalier attitudes towards the process of law affects the administration of justice. It affects docket management of Courts and causes avoidable delays, cost escalations and chaos. The effect of this is borne not only by the litigants, but also commerce in the country and the public in general who spend decades mired in technical processes. 21. It is obvious from the record that nothing prevented the appellant from filing the written statement through counsel or in person. The effect of this is borne not only by the litigants, but also commerce in the country and the public in general who spend decades mired in technical processes. 21. It is obvious from the record that nothing prevented the appellant from filing the written statement through counsel or in person. He has, thus, failed to give any cogent reason for the delay and is unable to satisfy due diligence on his part though he is right in his submission that the High Court erroneously relied upon the ratio of Oku Tech (supra).” It is also seen from the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Desh Raj (supra), that the Hon’ble Apex Court was inclined to dismiss the appeal, but looking at the unique circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Apex Court took a lenient view, however, in the present case, no such unique circumstances have been drawn out by the counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, applying the ratio to the present case, it is seen that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate before the learned Trial Court and this Court, that what precluded him from filing his written statements, when he had sought the liberty to do so, way back on 14.09.2023. 10. Moreover, upon a specific query raised by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to justify as to what precluded him from challenging the impugned order without much further ado, inasmuch as this Court finds that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Trial Court on 13.02.2024 (Annex.P/2), however the petitioner has preferred a writ challenging the said order dated 13.02.2024 (Annex. P/2) on 07.11.2024, i.e. after 9 months of passing the impugned order, without assigning any reason for the said delay. Also, upon perusal of the order-sheets drawn by the learned Trial Court, this Court finds that the petitioner has been afforded the opportunity to file his written statements several times, inasmuch as the petitioner sought time to file his written statements for the first time on 14.09.2023, and until 13.02.2024 (Annex.P/2), the petitioner has failed to file his written statements without affording any cogent reason for the same and thus, this Court deems it fit not grant indulgence in the order dated 13.02.2024 (Annex.P/2) passed by the learned Trial Court. 11. Therefore, no interference is called for in the present case. 11. Therefore, no interference is called for in the present case. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Any application, if pending, shall also stand dismissed.