( 1 ) THE petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 27 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy. The suit was filed for recovery of money. According to the petitioner, the suit summons were served on the sole defendant/respondent herein on 10-5-2002. The defendant appeared through counsel before the Court on 13-6-2002 and the Court granted time for filing written statement from time to time. Ultimately on 9-10-2002, the defendant filed a written statement and the Court accepted the same. None the less, the petitioner filed an application being I. A. No. 390 of 2002 under Order VIII, Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC 1908 as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1999 (Act 46 of 1999) and the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 2002 (Act 22 of 2002 ). The petitioner prayed the trial Court to pronounce the judgment by rejecting the written statement filed by the defendant. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 3-3-2003 dismissed the petitioner s application holding that the defendant filed the written statement within the time permitted by the Court and therefore a judgment cannot be pronounced as per Rule 10 of Order VIII, CPC.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K. Srinivas submits that Order VIII, Rule 1, CPC as amended by Act 46 of 1999 has to be strictly interpreted having regard to the spirit with which the amendments were brought into force. According to the learned counsel, the Civil Court is not entitled to extend time beyond 30 days from the date of service of summons on the defendant/defendants for filing written statement and as the defendant has not filed the written statement within 90 days as required under Order VIII, Rule 1, CPC, the lower Court ought to have pronounced the judgment or order.

( 3 ) THIS revision petition is filed under Section 115, CPC. As per the said section as amendment by Act 46 of 1999, the petitioner has to show that if his I. A. had been allowed, the same would have resulted in the disposal of the suit itself. As the petitioner prayed for pronouncement of the judgment and had it been allowed, it would have resulted in the disposal of the suit itself, the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable.

( 4 ) THE next question is whether the Court below has acted within the jurisdiction conferred on it and whether the alleged improper exercise of jurisdiction by the lower Court has resulted in miscarriage of justice to the petitioner?

( 5 ) RULE 1 of Order VIII, CPC as it existed prior to Act 46 of 1999 and as it existed after amendment Act 22 of 2002 reads as under :

( 6 ) A reading of Rule 1 of Order VIII, CPC does not support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The normal requirement of law is that the defendant shall within 30 days from the date of service of summons, present the written statement of his defence subject to other Rules contained in Order VIII. This Rule is not inflexible or rigid. This is made clear by the proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII as amended by Act 22 of 2002. It stipulates that it is competent for the Court to specify the time beyond 30 days and in any case the same shall not be later than 90 days from the date of service of summons. It is also interesting to note that Rules 8-A, 9 and 10 in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were omitted by Act 46 of 1999 but again they were reintroduced after Act 22 of 2002. Rule 10 of Order VIII reads as under : 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 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.

( 7 ) A plain reading of the above would show that if a defendant fails to present the written s