M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.@mdashThis petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the efendants in O.S.292/2006 on the file
of Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi challenging Ext.P3 order dismissing I.A.1729/2007, an application to receive the written statement filed beyond
the period provided under Rule 1 of Order VIII of Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioners did not file the written statement within the period of thirty
days or ninety days provided under Rule 1 but after a period of more than one year. Learned Munsiff dismissed the application holding that ten
chances were given to file written statement with a gap of one month each and still written statement was not filed and in such circumstance without
showing special circumstance written statement cannot be received. Learned senior Counsel argued that petitioners have appeared in the suit and
filed a counter in the injunction application which was being contested and in such circumstance, written statement should have been received on
terms. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents argued that learned Munsiff considered the question in the proper perspective and on the failure
of petitioners to disclose special circumstances to receive the written statement, petition was dismissed and there is no illegality in the order.
2. Rule 1 of Order VIII of CPC provides a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the summons to file the written statement. It also
provides for a further period of 90 days to receive the written statement recording reasons. True, it does not mean that after the expiry of 90 days,
written statement cannot be received at all. If the written statement is to be received thereafter, defendants have to show sufficient cause which
prevented them from filing the written statement within the period. As found by the learned Munsiff affidavit filed in support of Ext.P1 application
does not explain the reasons properly for receiving a written statement subsequent to the period of 90 days. But considering the fact that suit is one
for injunction and the dispute is with regard to the existence of a way claimed by petitioners and also taking into consideration the fact that delay
could be compensated by cots,though the affidavit is not satisfactory, on terms petitioners could be permitted to file a written statement. Written
statement filed along with Ext.P1 application will be received on payment of Rs. 2000/-.
Writ Petition will stand allowed and Ext.P3 order will stand quashed and I.A.1729/2007 will stand allowed and the written statement received, on
the petitioners paying or depositing a cost of Rs. 2000/- to the respondents within seven days from today.
Learned Counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that cost is paid and learned Counsel appearing for respondents submitted that the cost
awarded is received. Recording that fact, the Writ petition stands allowed.