JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Prabhat Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1. 2. Notices upon opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have already been effected which is indicated in the order dated 21.04.2025 and on that day, with a view to provide one more opportunity to opposite party nos. 2 to 4, the matter was adjourned, however till date, no appearance is made on behalf of them and in view of that, this petition is being heard in absence of opposite party nos. 2 to 4. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting-aside the order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division-V), Ranchi, whereby, the petition filed for accepting the written statement has been rejected by the learned Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the situation was not in control and in view of that, the order of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No. 4741 of 2012 vide order dated 15.01.2018 was tried to be complied belatedly. He further submits that by the said order of this Court, the orders dated 01.12.2011 and 02.05.2012 were set-aside and direction was given to accept the written statement of the defendant nos. 1 to 11 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 15,000/-. He further submits that the said order of this Court was tried to be complied belatedly and by the impugned order dated 22.02.2023, the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioners. He then submits that the order of this Court was not complied due to illness of defendant no.8 and sudden demise of the counsel during COVID-19, who was conducting the case of the petitioners before the learned Court. He further submits that thereafter steps have been taken and in view of that, the delay has occurred. He further submits that within a week, he will deposit the cost and the written statement which has already been filed, may kindly be directed to be accepted. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 1 has opposed the prayer and submits that even the order of this Court is not complied and in view of that, the learned Court has rightly rejected the petition filed by the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 1 has opposed the prayer and submits that even the order of this Court is not complied and in view of that, the learned Court has rightly rejected the petition filed by the petitioners. He further submits that only to delay the matter, they are filing such petition. He submits that in view of that this C.M.P. may kindly be dismissed. 6. It is an admitted position that by the order dated 15.01.2018 passed in W.P. (C) No. 4741 of 2012, the impugned orders therein by which the written statement was not taken on record, were set-aside by this Court and the petitioners herein were directed to deposit the cost of Rs.15,000/-. However, the amount of cost has not been deposited and in view of that the learned Court has rejected the second petition filed for accepting the written statement and the cost. The Court finds that the learned Court in this background was constrained to pass such order as the order of the High Court was not complied by the petitioners. The written statement was already directed to be taken on record subject to payment of cost of Rs. 15,000/-, however, belatedly the petition was filed and the reasons are said to be passing away of the learned counsel during COVID-19 who was conducting the case of the petitioners before the learned Court and defendant no. 8 has also left for his heavenly abode. 7. In the interest of justice and further considering Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is not a mandatory provision and it is directory in nature, as has been held in several cases and in view of that, in the interest of justice the order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division-V), Ranchi in Original Suit No.138 of 2011 is set-aside. However, the amount of cost is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- to be paid to the opposite parties/plaintiffs by the petitioners/defendants before the learned Court within a week. If the cost is deposited by the petitioners/defendants within a week, the learned Court will accept the written statement of the defendants and the plaintiffs will be provided an opportunity to rebut the said written statement. 20,000/- to be paid to the opposite parties/plaintiffs by the petitioners/defendants before the learned Court within a week. If the cost is deposited by the petitioners/defendants within a week, the learned Court will accept the written statement of the defendants and the plaintiffs will be provided an opportunity to rebut the said written statement. It is made clear that if within one week the cost will not be deposited, the learned Court will not accept the said written statement and will proceed with the suit to be decided on its merit. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. 9. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.