The court has the discretion to extend the time for filing a written statement beyond 90 days but within the limits of the proviso to Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure in appropriate cases.

( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THE defendant failed to file a written statement within 90 days of entering appearance in the suit. On 4-11-2003, he was given time to file his written statement. He did not file the written statement. The plaintiff thereupon filed an application praying that the defendant be debarred from filing, written statement, since the defendant had not filed a written statement within the time prescribed by Order VIII rule 1 of the Code of civil Procedure and even with the time allowed by the Proviso to that Rule. The defendant filed an objection to this petition by submitting that he had filed a written statement on the previous day and that the written statement may be accepted, since, he had filed the written statement on the date to which the case was adjourned by the Court on 14-1-2004. The Court below rightly noticed that the mere adjournment of the suit to another day, did not mean an extension or fixation of time for filing the written statement and the defendant not having adhered to the period prescribed by order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure, the written statement filed beyond 90 days could not be accepted. Thus, the prayer of the plaintiff was accepted and the defendant was debarred from filing a written statement.

( 3 ) WHEN this proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed, while admitting it, I also directed that a sum of Rs. 1. 000/- should be deposited by the defendant in this Court as a condition for stay of further proceeding in the Title Suit. This was by way of a costs thrown away with the object of directing the same to be paid to the plaintiff respondent, when he appeared, as a condition for accepting the written statement filed eight days after the period of 90 days fixed by the Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with its proviso. Today, when the matter came up, counsel for the plaintiff, the respondent herein, submitted that Order VIII Rule, 1 of the Code was mandatory and the Court had no discretion to go beyond the period of 90 days mentioned in the Proviso to Order VIII rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence the order of the Court below did not call for any interference. The order passed was well within the jurisdiction of that Court. Counsel for the defendant petitioner pointed out that the written statement was filed on 10-2-2004, the date the suit stood adjourned to and it was in the bona fide belief that it would be enough if the written statement was filed on that date. He also submitted that it would be very harsh if the defendant is debarred from filing a written statement in the circumstances, considering the nature of the dispute between the parties and the issues involved in the suit.

( 4 ) IT is true, as has been held by the karnataka High Court in A. Sathyapal v. Yasmin Banu Ansari, AIR 2004 Karnataka 246 : (2004 AIR Kant HCR 1108) that the time fixed by the Order VIII Rule 1 of the code of Civil Procedure subject to its proviso, is mandatory and the power, if any, available, to the Court for extension of time, would be very limited, if not altogether denied, if he go by the words of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On an examination of that decision, I find that that court has also taken the view that since the outer time limit for filing a written statement is fixed by Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code and not by any order of Court, the power of extension available under Section 148 of the code, subject to the limitation introduced therein by the amendment, cannot be exercised. In a way, the decision of the karnataka cannot be said to be not justified, taking note of the purpose with which amendment to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was made. But, at the same time, is it necessary to denude the court dealing with a lis of even alimited power of granting some time to a defendant for filing a written statement in an appropriate case? No doubt, when the Parliament