The power of the court to extend the time for filing the written statement has not been taken away in absolute terms and can be extended beyond the outer limit, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions enshrined in the amended provisions applicable to the State of West Bengal.

Harish Tandon, J.

1. Two points fell for consideration before this Court; firstly, whether the court can extend the time to file written statement beyond the period provided under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and secondly, whether the matrimonial Suit should remain stayed until disposal of an application for alimony pendente lite. Shorn of unnecessary details the husband/petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under section 13(1)(i), (ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act) against the wife/opposite party. Admittedly, the summons of the suit was served upon the wife, who could not file the written statement within the time stipulated under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code. The summons appeared to have been served upon the wife/opposite party on 22nd May 2016 and she entered appearance on 6th August 2016 and filed an application under section 24 of the said Act for alimony pendente lite. An objection to the said application was filed by the husband/petitioner and thereafter an application was taken out seeking amendment of the application under section 24 of the said Act filed by the wife/opposite party. Subsequently, the application for amendment was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application. The fresh application was filed, in terms of the leave granted by the court and the parties exchanged the affidavits.

2. It is not in dispute that the wife/opposite party sought for an adjournment on the first date of appearance to file the written statement and continued to ask for adjournments on diverse dates. In the midst the said suit, two applications came to be filed, one by the wife/opposite party seeking stay of all further proceedings of the suit till the disposal of the application for alimony pendente lite and the other by the husband/petitioner to fix the suit at the ex parte board as the time to file written statement has expired. In response to the said application, the wife/opposite party contended that unless the litigation cost is awarded to her, she is unable to file written statement and, therefore, the application for maintenance should be heard first and the time to file the written statement should not be extended.

3. The trial court rejected the application filed by the husband/petitioner thereby refusing to place the suit at the ex parte board and allowed the application filed by the wife/opposite party staying all further proceedings of the suit until disposal of the application for alimony pendente lite.

4. An argument was advanced before the trial court that in view of section 21 of the said Act, the provisions contained under the Code has limited application. The trial court noticed various judgments of the Supreme Court and the law enunciated therein to the effect that the provisions contained under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code is not mandatory but directory in nature. The trial court further noticed the language used in section 21 of the said Act providing the applicability of the Code within the limited compass because of the expression "as far as possible". It is ultimately held that the Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code cannot apply strictly in a matrimonial suit. The husband/petitioner has challenged the impugned order in the instant revisional application.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the husband/petitioner that the provisions contained in the Code applies to a proceeding initiated under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and, therefore, the outer cap fixed in the said provision squarely applies to the suit of such nature. It is further submitted that once the suit/proceeding is guided and regulated by the provisions of the Code, different interpretations cannot be assigned with regard to the nature of the suits and should apply uniformly. Thus, the expression "as far as possible" cannot be interpreted to oust the rigorous provisions of the Code if the proceeding under the said Act is regulated by the