A V PURUSHOTAM Vs. N K NAGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a tenant in respect of premises bearing No. 43/ 6 ground floor, Vth Main, Ganghinagar, Bangalore -9. The respondent who is the owner of the aforesaid premises has filed a suit SC No. 1603/2002 on the file of learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, bangalore, for ejectment of the petitioner. In the said suit, the petitioner was served with summons on 28. 10. 2002 and the petitioner appeared before Court and sought for time to file written statement. The matter was posted to 7. 12. 2002 for filing of the written statement. On that day again a request was made for extension of time for filing written statement. It was granted and the case was adjourned to 18. 1. 2003 for filing of the written statement. On that day, again a request was made for grant of some time to file written statement. However, the learned Judge refused to grant the time for filing written statement. But the learned Judge did not proceed to pass a judgment and decree as contemplated under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC for not filing the written statement, but he adjourned the case for evidence to 17. 2. 2003. On 17. 2. 2003 the petitioner filed his written statement along with the application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file written statement, stating out the reason for not filing the written statement in accompanying affidavit. The said application filed by the petitioner for permission to file the written statement came to be rejected on the ground that the Court has no power to grant time for filing written statement after expiry of 90 days period from the date of service of summons. The said order dated 17. 2. 2003 refusing to grant time to file written statement is challenged in this Writ Petition.

(2.) AFTER amendment of the Civil Procedure Code by Act 46/1989 and by the Act of 22/2002 where procedural law has been substantially amended prescribing the time limit for filing the written statement, when statements were not filed in time the Courts below were passing orders rejecting the request to receive the written statement after the stipulated period on the ground that the Courts have no jurisdiction to receive the written statement. In view of the amendment the question that arise for my consideration are:

(3.) IN order to answer these questions, it is necessary to have a look at the amendments carried out to the various provisions dealing with written statement. Order 5 Rule 1 of CPC, which deals with summons, has been extensively amended as under: 1. Summons -