JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite parties [O.P.No.1 who is plaintiff in the suit and the others who are said to be proforma Defendants/O.Ps.]. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the orders dated 02.02.2022 as well as 12.07.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No.19 of 2011 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for acceptance of the written statement has been rejected. 3. Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Title Suit No.19 of 2011 was instituted for decree of possession as the registered general power of attorney bearing Deed No.IV, 844 dated 30.07.2009 and cancellation of the registered Sale Deed No.7021 dated 11.11.2009, not binding upon the plaintiff and principal defendant no.4. The prayer is also made for setting aside the general power of attorney. 4. He submits that the suit was admitted on 23.6.2011 and summons were issued upon the defendants for their appearance. He submits that the said suit was proceeded ex-parte and it came to the knowledge of the petitioner and by way of filing Vakalatnama they have appeared and filed written statement dated 25.9.2013 along with the petition. He submits that the same was allowed with condition to deposit Rs.One thousand for its acceptance. He submits that thereafter the suit has proceeded and both sides evidence has been closed and the matter was fixed for final argument. He submits that later on it has been detected that the written statement has not been accepted as the cost has not been deposited and in view of that the petition has been filed to recall the order dated 14.10.2015 by which the written statement filed by the petitioner has not been accepted due to non-deposition of the said amount/cost and he submits that it has occurred due to inadvertence and in view of that, the prayer made in the petition may kindly be allowed. 5. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite parties opposed the prayer and submits that earlier a petition was filed by the petitioner on 02.01.2020 which was dismissed by the learned court by the order dated 02.02.2022 and the case was fixed for argument on 26.02.2022 and the plaintiff has concluded its argument and has also filed the written statement on 19.05.2022 and considering that the delaying tactics has been adopted by the petitioner herein for not disposing of the suit and for that the said tactic has been adopted and in view of that the learned court has been pleased to reject the said petition. She submits that due to pendency of the present petition, the suit is pending at the stage of argument. She submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. It is an admitted position that the petitioner herein has appeared before the learned court and a petition was filed for acceptance of the written statement on 25.04.2013 which was allowed by the order dated 23.7.2014 subject to the deposition of Rs.One thousand. However, the deposition of Rs.One thousand has not been made and on that ground, by order dated 14.10.2015 the written statement was not accepted as the cost of Rs.One thousand was not deposited and after seven years the petition was filed for recall of the order and to accept the written statement. The provision of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC enables the Court to extend the period of 30 days to 90 days from the date of summons for filing the written statement for the sufficient reasons. No doubt, the word, ‘ shall not be later than 90 days’ in the proviso of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC do not take away the power of the court to accept the written statement beyond that time as the nature of the provision is procedural and directory and not a part of substantial law, but the time can be extended only in the exceptionally hard cases. In such a situation, the onus upon the defendants is of a higher degree to plead and satisfactorily demonstrate the valid reason for not filing the written statement within 30 days. However, in the case in hand, the written statement was accepted subject to the payment of Rs.One thousand. In such a situation, the onus upon the defendants is of a higher degree to plead and satisfactorily demonstrate the valid reason for not filing the written statement within 30 days. However, in the case in hand, the written statement was accepted subject to the payment of Rs.One thousand. The deposition of the cost has not been made and in view of that the written statement was not accepted by the order dated 14.10.2015. What is the requirement of the provision it could not be a ground to condone the delay of more than seven years when it is calculated from the year 2013. The petitioner herein is allowed to continue the suit and even allowed to close the evidence on his behalf. The matter has reached up to the argument stage and thereafter the step has been taken. The valid reason has not been disclosed by the petitioner herein and if such a situation is there, the learned court has rightly passed the order. A reference may be made to the case of Atcom Technologies Limited v. Y.A. Chunawala and Company and Others , reported in (2018) 6 SCC 639 . 7. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order and, as such, C.M.P. No.439 of 2022 is dismissed. 8. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.