JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.1 to 4. 2. It has been pointed out that the notice upon opposite party nos.5 and 6, who were the proforma opposite parties, have been dispensed with by the earlier order dated 18.11.2024. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 14.02.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Koderma in Original Suit No.79 of 2019, by which the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the prayer to accept the written statement along with the counter claim filed by the defendant No. 3. 4. Mr. Bhaiya V. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his prayer for filing written statement and he is not pressing the counter-claim prayer. 5. Mr. Bhaiya V. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the opposite parties/plaintiffs instituted Original Suit No. 79 of 2019 in the court of learned Sub-Judge-I, Koderma against the defendants praying therein a decree for execution of the right, title, interest and possession over the suit lands and for declaration that the registered sale deed dated 06.12.2013 executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of the defendant nos.2 and 3 are illegal, void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. He submits that the prayer was also made for grant of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. He further submits that the summon in the said suit was issued and the petitioner put his appearance in the suit on 20.02.2020. He submits that the petitioner was arrested on 14.08.2020 in connection with N.D.P.S Case No. 01 of 2020 and since then he was in judicial custody. He then submits that thereafter the written statement and the counter claim have been filed, which has been rejected by the learned Court by the impugned order. He submits that due to Covid-19 also such delay has occurred. He further submits that the said written statement was filed on 04.03.2022, but the learned court has rejected the same. 6. He then submits that thereafter the written statement and the counter claim have been filed, which has been rejected by the learned Court by the impugned order. He submits that due to Covid-19 also such delay has occurred. He further submits that the said written statement was filed on 04.03.2022, but the learned court has rejected the same. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.1 to 4 vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that there is much delay and no sufficient explanation is made, in view of that the learned Court has rightly passed the order. He relied in the case of “Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through His LR” reported in (2024) INSC 26 . Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also been pleased to hold that in absence of any cogent reason delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner. On this ground, he submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed. 7. The Court has gone through the materials on record including the averments made in the CMP as well as order of learned Court. It is an admitted position that the suit was instituted in the year 2019 and petitioner herein has put his appearance before the learned Court on 20.02.2020. He was arrested on 14.08.2020, as disclosed in para-8 of the CMP, in N.D.P.S. Case No. 01 of 2020 and he has filed the written statement on 04.03.2022. In the meanwhile, the Covid-19 pandemic was there and the Hon’ble Supreme Court even in the statutory period of limitation has extended in one of the suo-motu case. The Hon’ble High Court has also passed the appropriate order at that time for condoning of the delay. The learned Court has relied in the case of “Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors.” reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 and rejected the filing of the written statement on the ground that in a routine manner, delay cannot be condoned. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 30 and 46(v) in the case of ‘Kailash (Supra)’ has held as follows:- “30. The learned Court has relied in the case of “Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors.” reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 and rejected the filing of the written statement on the ground that in a routine manner, delay cannot be condoned. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 30 and 46(v) in the case of ‘Kailash (Supra)’ has held as follows:- “30. It is also to be noted that though the power of the Court under the proviso appended to Rule 1 of Order VIII is circumscribed by the words "shall not be later than ninety days" but the consequences flowing from non-extension of time are not specifically provided though they may be read by necessary implication. Merely, because a provision of law is couched in a negative language implying mandatory character, the same is not without exceptions. The courts, when called upon to interpret the nature of the provision, may, keeping in view the entire context in which the provision came to be enacted, hold the same to be directory though worded in the negative form. 46. …………………………………… 46(v). Though Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC is a part of Procedural Law and hence directory, keeping in view the need for expeditious trial of civil causes which persuaded the Parliament to enact the provision in its present form, it is held that ordinarily the time schedule contained in the provision is to be followed as a rule and departure therefrom would be by way of exception. A prayer for extension of time made by the defendant shall not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for asking, more so when the period of 90 days has expired. Extension of time may be allowed by way of an exception, for reasons to be assigned by the defendant and also be placed on record in writing, howsoever briefly, by the Court on its being satisfied. Extension of time may be allowed if it was needed to be given for the circumstances which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. Costs may be imposed and affidavit or documents in support of the grounds pleaded by the defendant for extension of time may be demanded, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case.” 8. Costs may be imposed and affidavit or documents in support of the grounds pleaded by the defendant for extension of time may be demanded, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case.” 8. In the Case of ‘Kailash (Supra)’ the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Order-VIII Rule I of CPC is not mandatory which is directory and in appropriate cases it can be relaxed. During that period, the Covid-19 was there. The Court finds that sufficient ground is made out to accept the written statement filed belatedly. However, it has already been filed on 04.03.2022. 9. So far the judgment relied by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.1 to 4 in the case of ‘Union of India & Anr. (Supra’ is concerned in that case there was delay of 12 years and 158 days in the light of that judgment has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The facts of the present case and in the light of Covid-19 is otherwise, as such, that judgment is not helping the opposite parties. As such the order dated 14.02.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Koderma in Original Suit No.79 of 2019, by which the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the prayer to accept the written statement filed by the defendant No. 3, is hereby, set aside. 10. The learned Court will accept the written statement of the petitioner at the cost of Rs.2,500/- to be paid to the plaintiff and will proceed in accordance with law. 11. This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending IA, if any, also stands disposed of.