Written statement deadline under civil procedure is directory, with courts retaining limited discretion to accept delayed filings.

Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, which sets a ninety-day limit for filing a written statement, is procedural and ordinarily directory rather than mandatory. The provision aims to expedite civil trials, but it does not affect substantive rights and contains no express penal consequence for non-compliance. Read with Order VIII Rule 10 and the principle that procedure should advance justice, the court retains discretion to accept a written statement beyond ninety days in exceptional cases for recorded reasons. The timeline must generally be observed, but rigid application cannot prevent justice in hard cases.

---

---

Issues: Whether the time limit for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is mandatory or directory, and whether the court retains power to accept a written statement beyond ninety days in exceptional cases.

Analysis: The provision was enacted to expedite civil trials and curb dilatory tactics, but it is procedural in nature and does not deal with substantive rights. The language fixing the outer limit of ninety days is negative in form, yet no penal consequence is expressly prescribed for non-compliance. Reading Order VIII Rule 1 with Order VIII Rule 10, and applying the principle that procedure is intended to advance justice and not defeat it, the Court held that the time schedule is ordinarily to be followed, but departure is permissible in exceptional cases for recorded reasons. The court's power to take the written statement on record is not completely taken away.

Conclusion: Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directory and not mandatory, and the court may extend time beyond ninety days in exceptional hard cases. The appellant's challenge to acceptance of the written statement therefore failed.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms that procedural timelines must generally be observed, but they cannot be applied so rigidly as to prevent justice in exceptional circumstances, and the appeal was rejected on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural provision enacted to expedite justice is ordinarily directory unless the statute clearly excludes judicial discretion and attaches explicit consequences for non-compliance; the court may relax the timeline in exceptional circumstances to avoid miscarriage of justice.

---