The court clarified that a Court trying a civil suit does not have the power to extend time for filing the written statement beyond what is stipulated in Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 1 ) DIVERGENT opinions expressed by different single benches of this Court have necessitated the present reference to a larger bench to resolve the conflict and the resultant confusion as regards the true and correct interpretation of Order VIII, Rules 1 and 9 of the cpc. The precise question that falls for consideration is whether a Court trying a civil action has the power to extend time for filing of a written statement beyond what is stipulated in Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code. The question arises In the following backdrop.

( 2 ) IN S. G. Narayana Swamy v. Rama- krishnappa ILR 2003 Kant 2205 : AIR 2003 kant 378 : (2003 AIR Kant HCR 2020), K. Sreedhar Rao, J. , while interpreting Order viii, Rules 1, 9 and 10 held that unbridled discretion to grant extension to file written statement stood curtailed by the amended provisions. If the defendant in a suit does not file a written statement within the time stipulated under Order VIII, Rule 1, he can for valid reasons seek condonation of the delay in doing so. The Court can in such situation exercise its inherent power and condone the lapse and admit the written statement belatedly while compensating the opposite party for the inconvenience caused to it by awarding costs punitive or otherwise to discharge what the Court described "misuse or the abuse of the provisions". A rigid or technical view on the interpretation of the provision will, observed his Lordship, result in multiplicity of avoidable "off shoot proceedings" like an appeal against the decree.

( 3 ) G. C. Bharuka, J. in Smt. Savitha gupta v. Smt. Nagarathna (2003) 4 Kant LJ 14 : AIR 2003 Kant 426 : (2003 AIR Kant hcr 2028) expressed a contrary view. His lordship held that from the amended provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of civil Procedure, it was evident that a defendant loses his right to file a written statement if he fails to do so within the time prescribed by the said provision. The Court has no power declared his Lordship to extend such time even u/s. 148 or 151 of the CPC.

( 4 ) KUMAR Rajaratnam, J. as his Lord- 249 ship then was, in Prasanna Parvathamba vaidyanatheshwara Trust, Represented by its President, Mandya v. M. S. Radhakrishna dixit, ILR 2003 Kant 3097 : AIR 2003 Kant 3454 : (2003 AIR Kant HCR 1645) interpreted the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code as carrying a clear mandate to the effect that written statements must be filed within 30 days from the date of the service of the summons. Failure to do so could be condoned by the Court but not beyond a period of 90 days from the date of the service of the summons. The Court further held that if a written statement was not filed within the extended period also, the Code mandates the Court to pronounce judgment against him or make such order as it thought fit. His Lordship further found an enabling provisions of Order VIII, Rule 9 of the CPC for filing of a written statement within 30 days from the date the Court invoked the power vested in it under the said provision but cautioned that since the new Code was enacted by the Parliament to cut short delays at various levels, the Courts must be extremely cautious in exercising the said power.

( 5 ) B. Padmaraj, J. , Civil Revision Petition No. 1494/2003 disposed of on 10-7-2003 held that the provisions of Order VIII, rule 1 of the CPC requiring a written statement to be filed within 30 days or within the outer limit of 90 days from the date of the service of the summons was clearly mandatory in nature. Failure on the part of the defendant to file a written statement within the stipulated period resulted in the defendant losing the right to do so.

( 6 ) N. Kumar, J. , in A. V. Purushotam v. N. K. Nagaraj (ILR 2003 Kant 2459) : AIR 2003 Kant 417 : (2003 AIR Kant HCR 1951) interpreted the provisions of order VIII, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be directory in nature. His Lordship held that even after the Court extended time for filing of written statement u