JUDGMENT : (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 6. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the prayer is made for quashing of the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-VIII, Hazaribag in Original Suit (Title) No.77/2021 by which the learned Court has been pleased to reject the petition filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and debarred the petitioners from filing written statement. 3. I.A. No. 6242 of 2024 has been filed for confining the prayer with regard to debarring the petitioners from filing written statement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not pressing the prayer with regard to quashing of the entire order dated 01.09.2022 and they are ready to contest the suit on merit. He submits that in view of debarring the petitioners, their right are withheld in contesting the suit on merit and in view of that, the prayer made in the I.A. may kindly be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 6 opposed the prayer and submits that in light of Order II Rule 3 of the CPC, if the petitioners are omitting any relief, they are not entitled for further relief. 6. By the impugned order dated 01.09.2022, the learned Court has been pleased to reject the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC as well as debarred the petitioners from filing written statement. By way of filing the said I.A., the petitioners are now confining their prayer with regard to debarring them from filing written statement only and they are aggrieved with later part of the order dated 01.09.2022 and now the petitioners have chosen to contest the suit on merit. The objection raised by the learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 6 by referring Order II Rule 3 of the CPC is not available in view of the fact that if any right is being waived by the petitioners that is at their own risk and, as such, the prayer made in the said I.A. is allowed. 7. Accordingly, I.A. No.6242 of 2024 is disposed of. 8. 1 to 6 by referring Order II Rule 3 of the CPC is not available in view of the fact that if any right is being waived by the petitioners that is at their own risk and, as such, the prayer made in the said I.A. is allowed. 7. Accordingly, I.A. No.6242 of 2024 is disposed of. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said suit was instituted for declaration of right, title and interest of the schedule property comprising of the pieces of land registered under Khata No.70, Plot Nos.392, 660, 677 and 954 situated at Village- Napokalan, Thana No.114, Anchal- Barkagaon, District- Hazaribag. He submits that the petitioners are defendants in the said suit and they have filed petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which has been rejected by the impugned order. He further submits that now the petitioners have decided to contest the suit on merit. He also submits that if the written statement is not allowed to be filed, that will prejudice the case of the petitioners. He then submits that Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is directory and not mandatory, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku and others reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 . 9. Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 6 opposed the prayer and submits that the learned Court has rightly passed the said order and in view of that, there is no illegality in the order in light of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC. 10. It is an admitted position that the Original Suit (Title) No.77/2021 was instituted for declaration of right, title and interest of the schedule property comprising of the pieces of land registered under Khata No.70, Plot Nos.392, 660, 677 and 954 situated at Village Napokalan, Thana No.114, Anchal- Barkagaon, District- Hazaribag and the petitioners are happened to be defendants in the said suit. Time and again, Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the High Courts. In the case of Atcom Technologies Ltd. V. Y.A. Chunawala & Co. , reported in (2018) 6 SCC 639 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 19 and 20, which read as under: “19. In the case of Atcom Technologies Ltd. V. Y.A. Chunawala & Co. , reported in (2018) 6 SCC 639 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 19 and 20, which read as under: “19. It has to be borne in mind that as per the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the defendant is obligated to present a written statement of his defence within thirty days from the date of service of summons. Proviso thereto enables the Court to extend the period up to ninety days from the date of service of summons for sufficient reasons. Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as under: “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.” 20. This provision has come up for interpretation before this Court in number of cases. No doubt, the words “shall not be later than ninety days” do not take away the power of the court to accept written statement beyond that time and it is also held that the nature of the provision is procedural and it is not a part of substantive law. At the same time, this Court has also mandated that time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. We would like to reproduce the following discussion from Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 : (SCC p. 364, para 21) “21. … There is no restriction in Order 8 Rule 10 that after expiry of ninety days, further time cannot be granted. The court has wide power to “make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit”. Clearly, therefore, the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory. The court has wide power to “make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit”. Clearly, therefore, the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory. Having said so, we wish to make it clear that the order extending time to file written statement cannot be made in routine. The time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. While extending time, it has to be borne in mind that the legislature has fixed the upper time-limit of 90 days. The discretion of the court to extend the time shall not be so frequently and routinely exercised so as to nullify the period fixed by Order 8 Rule 1.” 11. The above aspect of the matter has been further considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddalingayya v. Gurulingappa reported in (2017) 9 SCC 447 . 12. In view of the above, the law is well settled that the time of 90 days prescribed for filing written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC in an ordinary suit is directory and not mandatory and the Court has the discretion to grant further time to the defendant in exceptionally hard cases by directing the defendant to pay cost to the plaintiff so as to do substantial justice to both the parties. 13. In the case in hand, initially the petitioners sought to reject the said suit filed by the plaintiffs by way of filing petition under VII Rule 11 of the CPC, however, later on good sense has prevailed upon the petitioners and they have decided to contest the suit on merit and in view of that, they want to file written statement. There is no huge delay and by the impugned order, the said petition filed by the petitioners has been rejected and the petitioners have also debarred from filing written statement by the said order. 14. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the prayer with regard to debarring the petitioners from filing written statement is, hereby, quashed. There is no huge delay and by the impugned order, the said petition filed by the petitioners has been rejected and the petitioners have also debarred from filing written statement by the said order. 14. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the prayer with regard to debarring the petitioners from filing written statement is, hereby, quashed. The impugned order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-VIII, Hazaribag in Original Suit (Title) No.77/2021 is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioners will file written statement within four weeks from today and the learned Court will accept the written statement, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiffs by the petitioners. The learned Court will proceed in the suit, in accordance with law. 15. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in above terms.