The court has the inherent power to regulate the procedure according to the Code of Civil Procedure, including the power to grant or refuse an extension of time for filing a written statement after the first hearing.

1. This application in revision is directed against an order by which the Court below has refused to allow the petitioners to file a written statement on their failure to do so within the time allowed by the court.

2. It appears that the suit out of which the present application arises was filed on the 28th of April, 1976. Summonses were issued to the defendants for framing of issues fixing 31st of May 1976. On that date a petition for time was filed by the defendants. Still the court fixed 30th of June, 1976 awaiting service report of summons issued. On the last mentioned date the defendants applied for time to file a written statement. The case was adjourned for this purpose to the 17th of Sept., 1976. Again there was a similar petition for time and the court again adjourned it to 7th of Jan., 1977 stating, however, that the defendants must file their written statement by that date failing which further time would not be granted. The defendants still did not file their written statement when the case was taken up on the 7th of Jan. 1977 and they again applied for time. The court rejected the application and ordered that the defendants shall be precluded from filing any written statement, but even in the absence of a written statement the defendants would be allowed to participate in the hearing of the case. It fixed 2nd of March, 1977 for the purpose. On that date the court ordered that since the defendants had been disallowed the right to file written statement, the hearing of the case may be fixed for 1st of May, 1977, but on that very date later the defendants filed their written statement and the court ordered the same to be kept on record. Hence this application directed against the order dated the 7th of Jan., 1977.

3. It may be mentioned further that on the very date the suit was filed a petition for ad interim injunction had also been filed for restraining the defendants from constructing a house on the lands in suit. The learned Munsif directed notices to issue in this respect to the defendants for showing cause by the 10th of May, 1976. On that date the defendants appeared and prayed for time to file the petition showing cause. Time was granted till 18th of May, 1976. On similar prayer by the defendants, time was allowed till 27th May, 1976 and again on the defendants prayer for time, 4th of June, 1976 was fixed. On the last mentioned date defendant No. 1 filed a show cause petition on behalf of the defendants. The hearing of the matter could not be done on account of lack of courts time as also at the prayer of the defendants for adjournment and the case was finally fixed for the 4th April, 1977. Meanwhile, however, the present application in revision was filed on the and of Feb., 1977 and by an order dated 14th of March, 1977 further proceedings in the court below were stayed. As a result the injunction matter could not be heard.

4. The only point raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the court had no jurisdiction to take away the right of the defendants to file written statement at or before the first hearing of the suit. It has been urged that in this case notice having been issued to the defendants for framing of issues, that was the "first hearing" within the meaning of R.1 of O.VIII of the Civil P.C. (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) and as such the defendants had a right to file the written statement until the issues were actually framed and the right could not be taken away. Reliance has been placed on a decision of a learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Chikkula Chendraiah V/s. Tata Seetarammaiah, AIR 1961 AP 102. It has been further urged that a defendant is not bound to file a written statement in a case unless required by court and he may do so in the first case either on his own or if required by the court at or before the first hearing or within such time as the court may permit. In such circumstances it is said that the court had no juris