The court has a discretion to grant further time for filing a written statement under Order 8 Rule 1(1) read with Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court should not strike out the defense of a party for failure to file a written statement unless the party has been given sufficient time to file the written statement and has failed to show sufficient cause for not filing the written statement on time.

( 1 ) THIS revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code ) is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th April, 1983 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi striking out the defence of the petitioner.

( 2 ) THESE are the facts. On 25th May, 1982 New Friends Co-op. House Building Society Ltd. respondent No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 93,178,90 against Municipal Corporation of Delhi (defendant No. 1) and the petitioner/defendant No. 2 for refund of funds deposited for providing roads, services, drains in the New Friends Colony. Summons for settlement of issues were issued for 29th July, 1982 on which date again fresh summons were ordered to be issued for 9th September, 1982. Counsel for defendant No. 1 appeared. There was a report that Delhi Development Authority, defendant No. 2 had refused to accept summons. Ex parte proceedings were ordered against the petitioner/defendant No. 2 on 9th September, 1982. Written statement was ordered to be filed on 13th October, 1982. The suit was again adjourned for filing written statement by M. C. D. to 23rd November, 1982.

( 3 ) THE petitioner-defendant No. 2 made an application under Order 9 rule 7 of the Code on 23rd November, 1982 and the case was adjourned for its reply to 14th January, 1983, when the order dated 9th September, 1982 proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner-defendant No. 2 was set aside on payment of Rs. 100. 00 as costs. The suit was adjourned for filing written statement to 24th February, 1983 on which date costs were paid and it was submitted that written statement could not be prepared as copy of the plaint had not been supplied. Copy of the plaint was supplied and the suit was adjourned to 12th April, 1983 for filing written statement.

( 4 ) ON 18th April, 1983 the petitioner-defendant No. 2 sought adjournment as the draft written statement was ready but it could not be finalised. The trial court by the impugned order dated 12th April, 1983 declined to grant time and struck out the defence of the petitioner. No body appeared for defendant No. 1, the trial court therefore struck out also the defence of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (defendant No. 1) who had also not filed the written statement. The adjournment for filing written statement was refused on the ground that no cause much less sufficient cause under Order 17 of the Code was shown.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel submits that copy of the plaint was supplied to the petitioner on 24th February, 1983 and case was adjourned for filing the written statement to 12th April, 1983 when first request was made for adjournment to file written statement, that petitioner being a statutory authority, required time for co-ordination and preparing pleadings and the trial court refused adjournment under Order 17 of the Code which provision was not applicable for grant of time to file written statement, there was no ground for striking off defence and thus the court acted illegally and/or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. He further submits that the discretion exercised by the court refusing to grant time to file written statement was arbitrary and against the principles of judicial discretion.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that the revision is not maintainable ; the petitioner is entitled to participate in the trial of the suit ; the impugned order does not prejudice the defendant- petitioner and the same can be clallenged under Section 105 of the Code at the time of appeal against the final decree in suit.

( 7 ) ORDER 8 Rule 1 (1) of the Code reads as under :

"81 (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. "this sub-rule requires the defendant to file written statement of his defence on or before the first hearing or within such time as the court may permit The petitioner-defendant was required to file the