6 The trial Court has proceeded to allow the Application by imposing costs of Rs.2,000/-. It is now well settled position in law that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure are directory in nature and cannot be construed as mandatory. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Kailash vs. Nanhku 2005 (2) Mh.L.J. 775. Considering the fact that the functioning of the Courts was crippled with the Covid-19 pandemic, it cannot be stated that the trial Court has committed an error in allowing the Application of Defendant No.3 so as to warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At the same time Defendant No.3 appears to be casual approach and has made an attempt to file Written Statement after a period of two long years. In the meantime, Petitioners-Plaintiffs have already filed Affidavit of evidence. Though the cross-examination of Petitioners-Plaintiffs is yet to begin, the entire clock is likely to be set back on account of filing of Written Statement by Defendant No.3. In such circumstances, while allowing the Application of Defendant No.3, the Trial Court ought to have awarded substantial costs in favour of Petitioners-Plaintiffs. I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:
