G.M. LODHA, J.—This revision petition arises out of the order dated 1-6-74 of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun ordering that the proceedings be taken ex-parte against the petitioner for failure of filing written statement. 2. Mr. R.P. Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the lower court should not have taken a drastic view and restrained it self from directing the proceedings to be taken ex-parte when the defendant pointed out to the court that the copy of the plaint given to the defendant was defective one. Mr. Goyals contention is that it would have been in the interest of justice to grant time directing the plaintiff for filing the legible copy. According to Mr. Goyal, great in-justice has been done, as he has been debarred simply on the ground that he insisted for getting legible and correct copy. It is also submitted that such orders could not have been passed under Order 8, Rule 10 C.P.C. He relies open the judgment reported in A.I.R. 1936 Bombay P.470. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the defendant was consistently avoiding to file the written statement. On 15-5-74 the court has expressly held that copy of the plaint has already been served on the defendant and additional copies were given on 23-5-74. Two adjournments were given with costs but inspite of that, defendant failed to file the written statement. It is submitted that such dilatory tactics of the defendant should not be encouraged and specially so far as the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is concerned, there is absolutely no ground for interference. It is also submitted that an ex-parte order can be passed under order 5 rule 9 C.P.C. and also under Order 17, rule 3 C.P.C. 4. I have given thought ful consideration to the respective contentions of both the parties and also have carefully gone through the order dated 1-6-74 It appears from the impugned order that on 15-5-74 the lower court has come to the conclusion that a copy of the plaint has already been given to the defendant. This finding was enough for insisting on filing of the written statement without any further adjournment. The lower court in all fairness allowed two adjournments on costs and further directed that the additional copy which was available on the courts record also be given to the defendant. This finding was enough for insisting on filing of the written statement without any further adjournment. The lower court in all fairness allowed two adjournments on costs and further directed that the additional copy which was available on the courts record also be given to the defendant. If inspite of all this, the defendant did not file written statement, he did it as his own peril. Admittedly two adjournments were granted and the defendant should have filed the written statement. 5. I am therefore of the view that the trial court was perfectly justified in rejecting the prayer of defendant for further adjournment. The ground for seeking adjournment that the additional copy given to him was not legible and contained certain omissions, appeared to be a lame excuse and frivolous pretext to prolong litigation. 6. The other branch of the submission of Mr. Goyal is that even though written statement was not filed and the court did not think it proper to grant the adjournment for the same, no order for taking ex-parte proceedings could have been given under Order 8, rule 10 C.P.C. or any other Law. This contention is well founded and deserves to be accepted. 7. It would be convenient to consider order 8, rule 1 C.P.C. and Rule 10 C.P.C. at this stage. Order, 8 rule 10 C.P.C. reads as under:— "R. 10 Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court. Where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him or made such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drown up." 8. Order 8, rule 10 C.P.C. fails to specify what type of order can be passed. It only says that if written statement is not filed within the time, the court can pronounce the Judgment against the defendant or pass any such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. 9. Order 8, rule 10 C.P.C. fails to specify what type of order can be passed. It only says that if written statement is not filed within the time, the court can pronounce the Judgment against the defendant or pass any such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. 9. The crucial question, which requires determination in this case is whether the order directing that the proceedings should be ex-parte against the defendant, is contemplated and covered by the various orders which can be passed under Order 8, Rule 10 C.P.C. by the court. 10. In this context, I have to examine whether the direction of the court for proceeding ex-parte against the defendant can be sustained. In order to decide the issue, it would be necessary to first have to look at Order 8 Rule 1 and Order 8 rule 10 in addition to Order 17 rules 2 and 3 of the C.P.C. The defendant is required to file written statement at or before the first hearing or such time as the court may permit. In the instant case since the defendant failed to files the written statement on the first day of hearing, he was twice given time and the court directed that written statement would be taken on payment of certain cost. 11. So far as Order 17 Rules 2 and 3 are concerned, they cannot have any application in the case where a party fails to file written statement. Order 17 rule 8 contemplates two contingencies, firstly, when some order is given in relation to the recording of the evidence of party and if a party fails to produce evidence or to call the assistance of his witnesses then an order under clause (a) or (b) of rule 3 can be passed. If the party is present and one of the party has failed to comply with the order earlier passed in relation to production of evidence, the court can decide the suit forthwith. The second contingency is that if the party is absent, then the court can proceed under rule 17(a) C.P.C. 12. Under order 17 Rule 2 C.P.C. if a party remains absent, the court can proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in order 9. The second contingency is that if the party is absent, then the court can proceed under rule 17(a) C.P.C. 12. Under order 17 Rule 2 C.P.C. if a party remains absent, the court can proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in order 9. It is precisely O. 9, rule 6 sub-clause(a) that on order for proceeding ex-parte can be given when the defendant fails to appear, when the suit is called upon for hearing. The above comparative reference to Order 9, Order 17 and Order 8 would show that so far as passing of an order for proceeding ex-parte is concerned, it is only Order 9 rule 6 which expressly provides it. 13. The next question which arises for consideration is whether when order 8 rule 10 C.P.C. fails to expressly provide direction for proceeding ex-parte, can such a power be assumed or presumed by implication in any such order used in Order 8 rule 10 C.P.C. I am of the opinion that since an express provision is there in the Code of Civil Procedure laying down the conditions where an ex-parte order can be passed, being in O. 9, rule 6 C.P.C. any such implied power should not be assumed or presumed under O. 8, rule 10 C.P.C. It is well established law that when in the same law or statute or rules passing of certain order is contemplated on happening of some events, then while inter-pretating the various provisions of that law a residuary implied power should not be presumed, in the absence of such pre-requisite conditions having been fulfilled, by resort to the theory of implied power. 14. There have been series of cases in which it has been held that under Order 8 rule 10, the court is not competent to direct that the suit would proceed ex-parte. In addition to Bombay case referred above, reference may also be made to recent judgment in Badhemoni Padhiari vs. Tangudu Jaganathan(l) Hon. Justice Misra while considering the question whether under order 8 rule 10 ex-parte proceedings can be taken on failure of filing written statement, observed as under : "Legal position is settled beyond doubt that even if a defendant does not file a written statement, he is entitled to participate in the proceedings without any written plea." 15. The only conclusion which can be derived from study of O. 8, O. 9 and O. 17 C.P.C. and the interpretation given to them in the above judgments is that under O. 8, Rule 10 C.P.C. the court has no powers to direct that case would proceed ex-parte. 16. I am, therefore, of the view that the lower court was not justified in directing that the suit shall proceed ex-parte against the defendant because he has failed to file written statement. 17. In Methew Elenjical vs. The Nagpur Roman Catholic Dioreceen Corpn (P) Ltd. (2) a Division Bench discussed the implications of O. 8, Rule 10 C.P.C. and observed as under:— "Rule 10 in its ordinary meaning gives the Court a discretion either to pronounce judgment against the defendant on mere non-filing of the written statement or to make such order in the suit as it thinks fit. This would mean that the Court may in its discretion even grant more time to the defendant by adjourning the case. The Court is not obliged necessarily to pronounce judgment against a defendant merely because the defendant has failed to file the written statement within the time given by the Court. The rule, no doubt, says initially that the Court shall pronounce judgment against the defendant on his failure to file written statement required under R. 1 or R. 9 but it then proceeds to enable the Court to "make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit." The use of the word or which is normally disjunctive, after "shall pronounce judgment against him" to separate it from the words "make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit" shows that the discretion of the Court has been retained in such a situation as well. Moreover, the latter expression would be redundant and meaningless if the Court had no option except to pronounce judgment against the defendant. The rule of harmonious construction also requires such a meaning to be given to R. 10. On failure of the defendant to file the written statement required under R. 1 the Courts power under sub-r. (2) of Rule 5 is attracted which gives a discretion to the court to either pronounce a judgment in plaintiffs favour for mere non-filing of the written statement or not to do so, depending on the facts of a particular case. On failure of the defendant to file the written statement required under R. 1 the Courts power under sub-r. (2) of Rule 5 is attracted which gives a discretion to the court to either pronounce a judgment in plaintiffs favour for mere non-filing of the written statement or not to do so, depending on the facts of a particular case. If R. 10 is construed to mean that it leaves no discretion with the Court on defendants failure to file a written statement under R. 1 and the court must necessarily pronounce judgment against the defendant for that reason alone, then sub-r. (2) of R. 5 and R. 10 also cannot be reconciled. The plain meaning of R. 10 giving the word or occurring therein its ordinary meaning as a disjunctive instead of needlessly reading it as and leaves a discretion with the Court and on that construction there is no disharmony between these two provisions. For this reason also the plain meaning of the rule leaving a discretion with the court must obviously be preferred." 18. In view of the above the question is what order should be passed in. such circumstances, where the defendant fails to file written statement in spite of express directions of the court and after obtaining a number of adjournments for the same. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for this because two , options have been given under Order 8 rule 10 C.P.C. The one option open to the lower court is to pronounce judgment at once, which implies treating the plaint allegations to be correct because of the failure of the defendant to file written statement. The second option is to proceed with the case further and decide the case after taking evidence. 19. It would be open to the lower court now to either pronounce the judgment at once by treating the plaint allegations to be correct, if the facts and circumstances to warrants and it would be equally open to the court to proceed with the case by taking evidence and deciding it after that. 20. In either of the method or procedure adopted by the lower court, the defendant would not be allowed to file written statement, as he has failed to do so and the proceedings would be taken in either of the clauses of O. 8 rule 10 C.P.C. 21. 20. In either of the method or procedure adopted by the lower court, the defendant would not be allowed to file written statement, as he has failed to do so and the proceedings would be taken in either of the clauses of O. 8 rule 10 C.P.C. 21. The result is that the revision application is partly accepted. The order of the lower court so far as it relates to the refusing further adjournment for filing the written statement is upheld and the later part of the order directing that the proceeding would be taken ex-parte, is quashed. There would be no order as to costs.