Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 389 (KAR)

A. M. KHALTHAN v. M. SHESHAPPA

2004-06-23

H.G.RAMESH

body2004
H. G. RAMESH, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition by defendant No. 7 is directed against the interlocutory order of the Trial Court dtd. 11 -6-2004 rejecting his application-I. A. No. II filed u/s. 151 of CPC to permit him to file written statement in O. S. No. 1225/2002. ( 2 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Learned Counsel in support of his submission that the impugned order is erroneous has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mohammed Anwar (Deceased) By LRs v. Sabir (2004)2 KCCR 1337 ). ( 3 ) THE trial Court by the impugned order has rejected the petitioner's application for leave to file written statement on the ground that it had no power to extend time beyond what is stipulated under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. ( 4 ) THE suit in question was filed after 1-7-2002 i. e. , after coming into force of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 ('the Amendment Act' for short ). The application for leave to file written statement was admittedly filed beyond the time allowable under the amended Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC i. e. , beyond 90 days from the date of service of summons on the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting leave to file written statement is in conformity with the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in A. Sathyapal v. Smt. Yasmin Banu Ansari ILR 2004 Kant 1399 : (2004 AIR Kant HCR 1108 ). In the said case, the Division Bench while interpreting the amended Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC has held that a Court trying a civil suit does not have any power to extend time for filing of written statement beyond what is stipulated under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. ( 5 ) THE judgment in Mohammed Anwar's case referred to above is not applicable to the facts of this case as it was rendered in the context of a suit in which the suit summons was served on the defendants prior to coming into force of the Amendment Act. That is not the case here. On the facts of the present case, the time to file written statement is governed by the amended order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. That is not the case here. On the facts of the present case, the time to file written statement is governed by the amended order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. ( 6 ) IN view of the above, the impugned order cannot be said to suffer from any error of jurisdiction warranting interference under the extra-ordinary Jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .