( 1 ) THE defendant has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 26-2-2003 passed in O. S. 2053/2002. By the impugned order, the Court below has refused to entertain the written statement which was filed beyond the period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

( 2 ) THE suit is one for ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule premises. It was filed on 1-4-2002. On 5-4-2002 summons were directed to be issued to the defendant through court and by RPAD returnable by 2-7-2002. The order dated 2-7-2002 of the Court below shows that the summons were served and the defendant appeared through an Advocate. Though under the amended Order VIII Rule 1 the defendant was required to file written statement within one month of service of summons, she failed to do so. She did not make any prayer even for extending the time which could have been upto 90 days under proviso to the said rule. The case was accordingly posted for evidence of the plaintiff. On 4-2-2003 the plaintiff filed an affidavited Examination-in-chief. The case was posted to 22-2-2003 for cross-examination of P. W. 1. Though P. W. 1 was present for cross-examination on that day, he was not examined. The case was again posted to 26-2-2003 on which date P. W. 1 appeared, but the counsel for the defendant remained absent. Later on in the day, the Advocate for defendant filed an I. A. I. under S. 151 with the Written statement and the documents of the defendant. The Court below rejected the I. A. and refused to entertain the written statement on the ground that it was filed beyond the time prescribed under the provisions of the amended C. P. C.

( 3 ) ORDER VIII Rule 1 C. P. C. as amended by Act 46/1999 reads as under :"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. "

( 4 ) FROM the facts narrated above and the amended provisions of Order VII Rule 1, it is quite clear that the defendant loses the right to file Written statement if he fails to do so within the time prescribed. The Court has no power to extend such time even under S. 148 CPC beyond 30 days in which, after amendment, reads as under :"148 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.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Court below ought to have permitted the filing of Written Statement by exercising its discretion under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC. Order VIII Rule 9 reads as under -"subsequent Pleadings :- No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counter claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit, but the court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same. "

( 6 ) THE above rule is in two parts. The first part deals with presentation of additional pleadings by the parties with the leave of the Court. The second part empowers the Court to call for written statement or additional statement of his own from any of the parties, if the justice so demands.

( 7 ) RULE 9 of Order VIII CPC does not entitle the defendant to file written statement for the first time even with the leave of the Court. It is so bec