N KRISHNAN NAIR Vs. SIVASANKARAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has approached this Court through this revision challenging the order passed by the Court below in I.A. No. 2183 of 2002. Defendants in this case were made ex parte. Subsequently, an ex pane decree was passed and thereafter O.9, R.13 petition was filed to set aside the ex parte decree. Now that has been allowed by the Court below on costs. But learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that O.8 R.1 prescribes time within which written statement has to be filed. According to the learned counsel, at any rate under O.8, R.1 the period of time does not exceed 90 days. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents brought to my notice the decision reported in Nachipeddi Ramaswamy v. Ruchi Reddy, AIR 2003 A.P. 409. That decision says that the mentioning of 90 days does not prevent the Court from extending time as under S.148, the Court has got power to extend the time. According to me, under O.9, R.13, the Court can look into the ground and allow or reject the same. According to me, even if the written statement is not filed within 90 days, the Court can under O.9, R.13, set aside the ex parte decree and grant time to file written statement.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that already costs have been deposited. In the above view of the matter, I don't find any ground to interfere in the matter. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.