JUDGMENT - VAGYANI B.B., J.:-Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.

3. The point involved in both the writ petitions is similar in nature and, therefore, both the writ petitions are disposed of by common judgment.

4. The respondent Sahebrao Dagaduba Khandwe, r/o Shindphal, Tq. Sillod, District Aurangabad (respondent in Writ Petition No. 4700 of 2003) has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 77 of 2003 against the petitioner claiming specific performance of agreement and actual possession of the suit property. Bhagwan Mitharam Chaudhari, r/o Bahadurpura, Tq. Parola, District Jalgaon (respondent in Writ Petition No. 4688 of 2003) has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 76 of 2003 against the very petitioner claiming specific performance of contract and possession of the suit property. The suit summons in Regular Civil Suit Nos. 77 of 2003 and 76 of 2003 were duly served on the original defendant Prabhakar Mule (petitioner in both the writ petitions). The original defendant was supposed to appear before the Court on 30-4-2003.

5. In response to the suit summons, the defendant appeared in the suit. However, he did not file written statement within a period of 30 days, as per Order 8, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. The defendant even thereafter failed to filed written statement of his defence within a period of 60 days. In short, the defendant failed to file written statement of his defence within 90 days from the date of service of suit summons. After expiry of 90 days, the defendant moved the learned Civil Judge for grant of further extension to file written statement. The learned Civil Judge, by order dated 1-10-2003, rejected the prayer of the defendant on the ground that after expiry of period of 90 days from the date of service of suit summons, the Court has no authority to accept the written statement. The correctness of this order is challenged by the original defendant.

6. The learned Counsel Shri Palodkar for the petitioner argued that whole approach of the learned Civil Judge is wrong. According to him, the Civil Judge should have taken recourse to the provisions of section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure and should have extended the time to file written statement.

7. Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be pressed into service in case any period is fixed or granted by the Court for doing of any act and not otherwise. In the instant case, by virtue of Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant has to file written statement of his defence within a period of 30 days from the date of service of suit summons. After lapse of 30 days , the defendant can be permitted to file written statement of his defence on such other date as may be specified by the Court for the reasons to be recorded in writing but which shall not be latter than 90 days from the date of service of summons. Therefore, in any case, the defendant is required to file written statement of his defence within 90 days from the date of service of summons. This period is not fixed or granted by the Court. By mandate of statute, the period to file written statement is prescribed. Therefore, the provisions of section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked for enlargement of time to file written statement beyond 90 days.

8. In case of (Iriduim India Telecom Ltd., Bombay v. Motorola Inc. and another)1, 2004(2) Bom.C.R. (O.O.C.J.)530 , Division Bench of this Court has taken a view that the outer limit of 90 days prescribed by Proviso to Rule 1, Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure for filing written statement, cannot be extended further with the aid of section 148 of Code of Civil Procedure. The provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure are in the nature of self-contained Code as regards filing of written statement. It prescribes the outer limit for filing written statement. Therefore, Division Bench of this Court held that reliance upon general powers under secti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document