Written statement deadlines are directory, but late filing needs exceptional reasons and limited supervisory review cannot be used routinely.

The period for filing a written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory, but extension beyond the prescribed time is not automatic and is justified only in exceptional circumstances for adequate reasons. Where the trial court and revisional court recorded cogent reasons for refusing to take the written statement on record, supervisory interference under Articles 226 and 227 is not warranted unless there is illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or substantial failure of justice. Section 148 CPC cannot be used for routine or indiscriminate enlargement of time. The High Court's interference was therefore unsustainable and the order permitting late filing was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the orders of the trial court and revisional court and permitting the defendant to file the written statement after the prescribed period.

Analysis: The prescribed period for filing a written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directory, but extension beyond the stipulated time is not automatic and can be granted only in exceptional circumstances for adequate reasons. The trial court and revisional court had assigned cogent reasons for refusing to take the written statement on record. The High Court interfered without recording any finding of illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or substantial failure of justice, and therefore exceeded the limited supervisory scope under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The power under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be used to grant routine or indiscriminate enlargement of time.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unsustainable and the order permitting the written statement to be filed was set aside.

---