Consequences of failure to file written statement within the prescribed time: Rule 1 of Order 8 prescribes the time limit within which the defendant should present his written statement. Before the Amendment Act of 2002, the requirement was presentation of written statement at or before the first hearing of the suit or within such time as the court may permit. After this amendment, in order to expedite disposal of cases, 30 days time period from the date of service of summons upon the defendant has been prescribed for the filing of written statement and if the defendant fails to present the written statement within the said period, this period can be extended by the court but it shall not be later than 90 days from the date of service of summons upon the defendant and court shall record reasons for the extension of time. Rule 5(2) of Order 8 states that where the defendant has not filed his pleading, court can pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint (except as against a person under disability). But even in such a case court has discretion to require such fact to be proved and this discretion of the court will be guided by the consideration whether the defendant could have or has engaged a lawyer. When court pronounces judgment under this rule, a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment which shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.O 8 R5(4). As per rule 9 of Order 8, after the defendant has presented his written statement, no subsequent pleading other than by way of defence to set off or counter claim shall be presented except by the leave of the court and upon the terms fixed by the court. But the court may, in its discretion require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same. And lastly, rule 10 of Order 8 provides for procedure when a party fails to present written statement called for by court. It says that when the written statement is required from the defendant under rule 1 or rule 9, and he fails to present the same within the time fixed or permitted by the court, the court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up. Now question arises whether the defendant loses his right to file the written statement after the stipulated time period or the court has power to entertain the written statement beyond such time period. There are divergent views on this matter. According to one view, the words used in O8 R1 are precise and unambiguous and, therefore, the basic rule of interpretation must be followed, viz. where the language of rule is clear, the Court cannot abstain from giving effect to it merely because it would lead to more hardship. Therefore, howsoever, it may be harsh to the party, if the language of the amended O8 R1 is plain and simple, then effect should be given to the same and it cannot be read otherwise. Earlier the Court's power to permit filing of written statement was not hedged in by any limitation. As a result a defendant could avoid filing of the written statement on one pretext or the other postponing the trial of the suit indefinitely which was found to be objectionable. Therefore, to curtail the delay, the legislature regulated the discretion to be exercised by the Court. The discretion conferred upon the Court is not taken away but it is now regulated by prescribing the limitation upon the Court for exercising such discretion. Therefore, if O8 R1 is read in any other manner, for instance to hold the provisions directory, then the words “which shall not be later than 90 days from the date of service of summons” will be rendered nugatory and redundant. (Prahakar Madhavrao Mule v. Bhagwan Mitharam, 2004 (2) Mh.L.J.1058). The other view is that the intention of the legislature in introducing the amended provisions of O8 R1 is not to penalize the defendant who does not submit his defence within the stipulated period or to take away the discretion that was vested in the Court prior to the amendment. Procedural Rules are normally not considered mandatory in nature. Procedure is something designed to facilitate justice. The provisions of O8 R1 are therefore directory in nature. Rules 9 and 10 of Order 8 give discretion to the trial Court to allow the defendant to file written statement even after the expiry of a period of 90 days. But the provisions of O8 R1 should always be kept in mind while passing order extending time for filing written statement and ordinarily such extension shall not be granted except in exceptional and special circumstances (Chintaman Sukhdeo Kaklij and Ors. V. Shivaji Bhausaheb Gadhe & Ors., 2004 (5) BomCR 573). Similar observations have been made by the apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India (2005(2) ACJ 492), wherein it was held that the provisions of O8 R1 CPC are directory in nature. It intends to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of cases; causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs. The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. While justice delayed may amount to justice denied, justice hurried may in some cases amount to justice buried. All the rules of procedure are the handmaids of justice. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. Moreover, rule 10 of Order 8 is worded as, “the court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit.” It makes it clear that it is not mandatory for the court to pronounce judgment against the defendant in default. It can also make any other order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit which may also include the order to file written statement beyond the stipulated time period. In Naveed Ahmed v. Karnataka Bank Ltd. 2016 (4) AIR Kar R 189, Karnataka High Court has held that when the defendant fails to file the written statement , it may be lawful for the court to pronounce the judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint. But merely because it is lawful, it does not mean that the Court should abdicate its function of finding out as to whether the plaintiff has made out a case or not. Provisions of O8 R10 of CPC are not mandatory, in the sense, giving no option to the Court except to pass a judgment in favour of the plaintiff. Court has to comprehend facts and circumstances of each case and consider plaintiff’s case set up in the plaint and see if the the case is made out in favour of the plaintiff.