( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 25. 3. 2003 passed by the learned I Additional Senior civil Judge, Warangal, in LA. No. 797 of 2002 in O. S. No. 1118 of 2001.

( 2 ) THE first defendant in the suit is the petitioner in LA. No. 797 of 2002. He having been set ex parte on 11. 9. 2002 in the suit for his default in not filing the written statement within time filed the application under Order ,8, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( the code for brevity) seeking to set aside the ex parte order and to receive the written statement. The ground alleged inter alia in the affidavit filed in support of the said petition was that there had been a proposal for compromise in the suit and, therefore, he could not file the written statement within time.

( 3 ) THE first respondent-plaintiff resisted that application on the premise that under the amended provisions of Order 8, rule 1 of the Code, the written statement shall be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of summons and that after expiry of 90 days therefrom, the Court would cease to have any jurisdiction to extend the time for filing the written statement.

( 4 ) UNDER the impugned order, the court below allowed the petition on the condition of the petitioner paying costs of rs. 100/ -. The first respondent-plaintiff is now assailing the said order.

( 5 ) A short but significant point that might arise time and again for consideration by the Courts, as to whether a Court can extend time for filing a written statement, beyond the period of ninety days as enjoined under the proviso to Rule 1 of Order 8 of the Code for any good reasons to be recorded in writing, arises for adjudication in this case.

( 6 ) HAVING regard to the significance attached to the point it is appropriate at the threshold to consider Order 8, Rule 1 of the code, the provision germane in the context for consideration. It reads as under:"1. Written statement: The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of 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. "[emphasis added]

( 7 ) FROM a perusal of the said provision it appears at the outset that the defendant who is obliged to file the written statement within thirty days from the date of service of summons shall be allowed to file the same beyond the period of thirty days by extending the time but such extension shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. The Court shall have to record its reasons in writing for extending the time. Discretion thus seems to have been conferred upon the court by the Code to extend time for filing the written statement, of course, which discretion shall have to be exercised judiciously by recording the reasons in support thereof. However, the Court appears to have no such discretion to extend the time beyond the period of ninety days from the date of receipt of summons notwithstanding the compelling reasons if any in support thereof. It seems, therefore, that the defendant forfeits his right to file the written statement after expiry of the ninetieth day from the date of service of summons on him.

( 8 ) RULE 1 of Order 8 of the Code had been amended twice, initially under the CPC (Amendment) Act 46 of 1999 and later under the CPC (Amendment) Act 22 of 2002. Rule 8 as existed prior to the amendment under Act 46 of 1999 conferred jurisdiction upon the Court to extend time and it has not been hedged with any time limitation. Therefore, the Court could extend time, which in its view is reasonable. However, under the Amendment Act 46 of 1999, the provision was amended drastica