JUDGMENT - SHAH A.P., J.:-Divergent opinions expressed by two learned Single Judges of this Court have necessitated the present reference to a larger Bench to resolve the conflict as regards the true and correct interpretation of Order 8, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC for short). The question that falls for consideration is whether the Court can permit filing of written statement beyond the period of 90 days stipulated under Order 8, Rule 1 of the CPC. The reference arises in following manner.

2. In (Prabhakar Madhavrao Mule v. Bhagwan Mitharam)1, 2004(5) Bom.C.R. (A.B.)568 , Vagyani J., held that by virtue of recent amendment to the CPC by Act 22 of 2002, there is no alternative for the defendant to file written statement within 30 days from the date of service of suit summons and by virtue of proviso to Rule 1, Order 8 of the CPC, the written statement can be allowed to be filed on such other day for reason to be recorded in writing, but in any case not later than 90 days from the date of service of suit summons. Rule 1, Order 8 of CPC is mandatory in nature and it requires strict compliance. The time cannot be extended under Order 8, Rule 9 of the CPC as filing of written statement is governed exclusively by Order 8, Rule 1 and on failure to file written statement within 90 days under amended Rule 1, Order 8, the right to file written statement is lost and the defendant cannot bank upon Rule 9, Order 8 of the CPC to wipe out his default. Vagyani J. relied upon the decision of the Division Bench in (Iridium Indian Tele. Ltd. v. Motorola Inc.)2, 2004(2) Bom.C.R. (O.O.C.J.)530 .

3. As against this in (Shailaja A. Sawant (Dr.) v. Sayajirao Ganpatrao Patil)3, 2004(5) Bom.C.R. 548 , Bhosale J., took a view that the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1, CPC as amended by Act of 22 of 2002 are directory in nature. Rule 10 of Order 8, CPC governs both situations where the written statement is required under Rule 1 , Order 8 as also where it has been demanded under Rule 9. In both situations if a written statement has not been filed by the defendant, it will be open for the Court to pronounce the judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit under Rule 10, Order 8. If a written statement is not filed, the Court is required to pronounce the judgment against him. This also gives discretion either to pronounce the judgment to "make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit". In other words, it is open for the Court to allow the defendant to file a written statement even at that stage. Rules 9 and 10 of Order 8 give discretion to the trial Court to allow the defendant to file a written statement at any stage prior to the pronouncement of the judgment.

4. In view of the conflict of opinion in the above two judgments of the co-ordinate Benches, the matter has been referred to the larger Bench by Khanwilkar J., for an authoritative pronouncement on the point in issue.

5. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant statutory provisions. Before Amendment Acts, the relevant part of Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code, which reads as follows:

"(1) The defendant shall, at or before the first hearing or within such time as the Court may permit, present a written statement of his defence."

6. By the Amendment Act of 1999 subsequent to the amendment, Order 8, Rule 1 of Code, was re-enacted as follows:

"1. Written Statement.-The defendant shall at or before the first hearing or within such time as the Court may permit, which shall not be beyond thirty days from the date of service of summons on the defendant, present a written statement of his defence."

This has been substituted by the Amendment Act of 2002 to read as follows:

"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 da

Click Here to Read the rest of this document