- (1.) WHEN the matter is called out, counsel for the petitioners is absent. Neither the matter is mentioned, nor anybody appeared on behalf of the petitioners.
(2.) NOTICE issued by this Court has been served upon the respondent. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the present petitioners are the original defendants in Title, Suit No. 94 of 2007. It further appears from the facts of the case that the learned trial Court has debarred the present petitioners from filing the written statement, looking to the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3.) IT appears that the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directory in nature and not mandatory, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku and others as reported in 2005 (4) SCC 480 : (AIR 2005 SC 2441). In view of the aforesaid decision and looking to the reasons stated in the application given by the original defendants there are reasonable reasons for causing delay in filing the written statement. Sickness is also pointed out by the original defendants before the trial Court. Looking to the facts of the case, filing of the written statement ought to have been allowed by the learned trial Court by imposing some cost upon the original defendants in the interest of justice.;