Written statement delay under Order VIII Rule 1 is directory, preserving judicial discretion to accept belated filing in appropriate cases.

Order VIII Rule 1 CPC was treated as a procedural time limit intended to curb delay and promote expeditious disposal, but not as an express bar on judicial discretion. The Supreme Court held that the provision is directory rather than mandatory, because procedural rules should advance justice and preserve a fair hearing where no statutory prohibition or stated consequence for default exists. The Court therefore upheld power to accept a written statement filed beyond ninety days in appropriate cases and set aside the refusal to receive it.

---

---

Issues: Whether the court has power to accept a written statement filed beyond the outer limit of ninety days prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the provision is mandatory or directory.

Analysis: The time limit for filing a written statement was introduced to curb delay and secure expeditious disposal of civil suits, but the provision is procedural and does not expressly take away the court's power to accept a belated written statement. Procedural rules are intended to advance justice and should not be construed so rigidly as to defeat a fair hearing, especially where no express statutory prohibition exists. The nature of the provision, its object, and the absence of expressly stated consequences for non-compliance support a construction that preserves judicial discretion in exceptional cases.

Conclusion: The court has power to accept a written statement beyond ninety days in appropriate cases, and Order VIII Rule 1 is directory rather than strictly mandatory. The refusal to accept the written statement was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

---