The court clarified that a failure to file a written statement as per Order VIII Rule 1 entails a penalty on the defendant, leading to the suit being decided even in the absence of a written statement.

( 1 ) THIS revision by defendant under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure is directed against an order passed by the trial Court whereby the trial Court rejected the application for extension of time in filing written statement on the ground that in view of the amended proviso of Order VIII rule 1 no extension can be granted. Since more than 90 days have already expired after senrice of summons on the defendants , thus defendant is deprived from filing written statement. In terms of Order VIII rule 1 of C. P. C. , the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 is amended by amending Act 1999.

( 2 ) BY the amendment, the following provision is added to Order VIII Rule 1 of the code of Civil Procedure :"order VII, Rule 1. Written Statement the defendant shall within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence. Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. "

( 3 ) THE trial Court has taken a view that in view of proviso to the amended Rule, since period of ninety days has already elapsed from the date of service of summons on defendant, the Court ceased to have any power for extending the time for filing written statement. It is this order of the trial Court which is under challenge by means of the present civil revision.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision reported in AIR 2003 andhra Pradesh 409, Nachipeddi Rama- swamy v. P. Buchi Reddy, wherein the andhra Pradesh High Court has taken the view that Rules 1, 1a and 10 of Order VIII when read together would show that though a defendant is required to file written statement within 30 days after receipt of summons and though the Court can extend the time till 90 days from the date of service of summons, the Court is not divested of power to extend further time for filing the written statement beyond ninety days. It is well settled that this cardinal principle of interpretation of law with an enactment has to be read as a whole and then the entire section has to be read and thereafter the Act has to be interpreted section by section.

( 5 ) SIMILAR view has been taken by the madhya Pradesh High Court in the case reported in 2004 (13) All India Cases 926 (M. P. , h. C.), M. P. Rajya Pashudhan Aum Kukut vikas Nigam v. Bank of Baroda, Alirajpur decided on 17th September 2003.

( 6 ) ON the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision of Karnataka High Court reported in air 2003 Karnataka 426, Smt. Savitha gupta v. Smt. Nagaratha decision of karnataka High Court reported in AIR 2003 karnataka 345, Sri Prasanna Parvathamba v. Sri M. S. Radhakrishna Dixit, wherein the karnataka High Court has taken a view after considering the amended provision of order VIII Rule 1, that from the facts narrated above and the amended provisions of order VII Rule 1, it is quite clear that the defendant loses the right to file written statement if he fails to do so within the time prescribed. The Court has no power to extend such time even under Section 148 C. P. C. beyond ninety days.

( 7 ) AFTER the decision of Single Judge, Smt. Savitha Gupta v. Smt. Nagaratha (supra) the matter went to a Division Bench of the karnataka High Court. The Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, in the case reported in AIR 2004 Karnataka 246, after relying upon Supreme Court decision, held as under :"33. A plain reading of the above would show that failure of the defendant to file a written statement empowers the Court to pronounce judgment. The availability of the power to pronounce judgment on the failure of the defendant to file a written statement is nothing but a consequence which the statute provides for the failure. The fact that the