PANKAJ BHANDARI,J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 26.02.2016, vide which the court below has closed the written statement of defendants No.11 and 12. Petitioner being defendant No.12, has challenged the impugned order.
(2.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.12 that the court below proceeded ex parte against the petitioner on 09.10.2015. The application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was filed by the petitioner, which was allowed on cost of Rs. 500/- on 26.02.2016. But the court below without affording opportunity to the petitioner, closed the written statement. It is also contended by counsel for the petitioner that the court is empowered to permit filing of the written statement.
(3.) In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 480 , wherein the Apex Court observed that considering the object and purpose behind enacting Order 8, Rule 1 CPC in the present form and the context, in which the provision is placed, the Court was of the opinion that the provision has been construed as directory and not mandatory, and in exceptional situations, the court may extend the time for filing of the written statement within 30 days and 90 days referred to in the provision has expired.;