JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Ms. P. Chakravorty, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Keeping in view the nature of question involved in the case, this Court proposes to dispose of the same at the motion stage today itself. 3. By this application under Article 227/226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.11.03 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nagaon in Title Suit No. 31/03 by which the petitioners prayer for acceptance of the written statement filed after the statutory period of 90 days, has been rejected. 4. Assailing the impugned order abovementioned, Ms. Chakravorty, learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously argued that the provision of filing written statement within 90 days as envisaged under Order VIII, Rule 1 C.P.C. cannot be applied strictly confining to the said time frame only in as much as refusal to accept the written statement after the expiry of the statutory period has highly prejudiced the petitioner. 5. For the sake of convenience, the provision of Order VIII, Rule 1 C.P.C. may be referred as under : - "Written statement - The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement on his defence: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons." 6. The above provision clearly stipulates that the time frame for filing a written statement is only 90 days and not beyond that. 7. The issue involved in this petition has already been settled by this Court in a case of Baliram Prasad Gutpa v. Md. Isa reported in 2003 (3) GLT 30 wherein this Court has categorically observed that as a rule the written statement is to be filed within 30 days from the date of service of summons and thereafter the trial court has discretion to grant further time upto 60 days and after such expiry of this period the filing of written statement is not permitted. It is also observed that any dilution of the above provision will defeat the very purpose for which the provisions were amended and enacted by the Amendment Act, 2002. 8. The present law is that a time frame of 90 days from the date of service of summons is the utmost that the defendant gets to file the written statement. The sole aim and object of the amendment of the C.P.C. in 2002 is only for the expeditious and early disposal of the cases pending before the courts considering the huge pendency and backlog of the cases in Indian Courts. In the backdrop of such aim and object, the provision of Order VIII, Rule 1 has been amended strictly confining to itself a time frame of 90 days. That being so, the Court has no power to grant any time beyond the said statutory period. 9. At this stage, Ms. Chakravorty has also referred to the Section 148 C.P.C. which may read as under : - "Enlargement of time. - Where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, the Court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period, [not exceeding thirty days in total] even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired." 10. This provision applies only to the Court to enlarge the time period in its discretion, in exceptional circumstance which has not been provided under this Court. Since the time period has been fixed specifically under Order 8, Rule 1 C.P.C, the application of Section 148 cannot be brought into. The law is well settled that provisions of c Section 148 C.P.C. is applicable to time fixed by the court and cannot be applied to time fixed by law such as the provision of Order VIII, Rule 1 C.P.C. 11. It is also argued that the Court has the power to extend the time frame for securing the ends of justice under Section 151 C.P.C. After the fixation of the time period by the statute, the phrase, "the ends of justice" has no applicability in this case. It is a settled law that the inherent power cannot be pressed into service when there is any specific provision under the Code. 12. It is a settled law that the inherent power cannot be pressed into service when there is any specific provision under the Code. 12. That being so, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity calling for any interference with the impugned order dated 20.11.03. 13. Consequently, this petition fails and stands dismissed. Petition dismissed