BHOSALE D.B., J.:-Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in all the writ petitions, waive service. Heard finally by the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. This batch of writ petitions basically challenges the orders passed by the trial Court either allowing the defendant to file the written statement after the period prescribed under Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the C.P.C.") or disallowing the defendant from doing so on the ground that it was not presented within such period. The question, therefore, that falls for my consideration in these writ petitions is whether after the 2002 amendment to Order 8, Rule 1 of the CPC upon expiry of a period of 90 days from the service of the writ of summons upon the defendant, the defendant is wholly and absolutely barred from filing his written statement. In other words, whether the defendant cannot, under any circumstances, be permitted to file the written statement after expiry of the period of 90 days from the date of service of the writ of summons as prescribed by Order 8, Rule 1. The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 will be hereinafter referred to as the "recent Amendment" while Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 will be referred to as "1999 Amendment", for the sake of brevity and convenience. Since no factual adjudication is involved in any of the writ petitions, a brief reference to the facts of the first two writ petitions, one filed by the plaintiff and other by the defendant, will suffice.

4. In Writ Petition No. 2169 of 2003, the petitioner-plaintiff instituted a Special Civil Suit No. 49 of 2002 against the respondent-defendant. The trial Court issued summons to the defendant on 23-9-2002. It was re-issued on 30-10-2002 since the earlier summons was allegedly refused by the defendant. On 7-11-2002, the summons was duly served upon the defendant. Until 5-12-2002 the defendant did not appear as a result of which the Court passed an order below Exhibit 1 "Suit to proceed ex parte against the defendant". On 9-1-2003, for the first time, the defendant appeared through his Advocate and applied for time to file a written statement. Alongwith the application neither a written statement nor an application to set aside the "No. W.S." order was filed.

On 20-1-2003, the defendant filed Exhibit 13 application for setting aside the "No W.S." order. On 10-2-2003, the trial Court passed the order below Exhibit 13, impugned in the present petition, and allowed the defendant to file a written statement subject to costs of Rs. 500/-. According to the plaintiff, the order passed allowing the defendant to file the written statement was wrong and illegal inasmuch as it was passed in contravention of the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 CPC. It was also contended that the application was allowed without setting aside the "No W.S." order.

5. In Writ Petition No. 7340 of 2003 filed by the petitioners-defendants, the suit was instituted on 28-9-2003. The summons was issued on 8-10-2001 and it was admittedly served on the defendants. On 21-3-2002, the trial Court passed "No Say" order on the interim application and "No W.S." in the suit. On 21-3-2002, the Advocate for the petitioners applied for setting aside "No Say" order and omitted to apply to have "No W.S." order set aside. On 1-7-2002, the amendment to Order 8, Rule 1 of the CPC imposing a time limit for filing W.S. came into force. On 19-7-2002, the Court passed the order dated 21-3-2002 on the defendants application setting aside "No Say" order on payment of costs of Rs. 50/-. On 23-6-2002 the petitioners appointed a new Advocate and applied to set aside "No W.S." order dated 28-3-2002. On 6-8-2003, both the applications of the petitioners were disposed of by a separate order. "No Say" order was set aside on payment of cost of Rs. 75/- and as far as application for setting aside "No W.S