(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 29.09.2005 in I.A.No.130 of 2005 in O.S.No.12 of 2005 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.
(2.) THE first respondent in the present revision had filed a suit in O.S.No.12 of 2005 before the trial Court against the revision petitioner and others praying for a decree for the payment of a sum of Rs.18,78,478/- with interest at the rate of 18%. Summons was issued to the revision petitioner in the said suit and accordingly, he has entered appearance through counsel. Even though time was given to file written statement, the revision petitioner failed to submit the written statement within the period of 90 days from the date of service. THErefore, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.130 of 2005 for the purpose of adjourning the case for a period of two weeks so as to enable him to file the written statement and to contest the claim of the first respondent.
(3.) THE learned trial Judge rejected the prayer made by the revision petitioner for extension of time to file the written statement by a non-speaking order, and rather by a one line order saying that the reason stated is not a valid reason. While considering the application like the one, the trial Judge is expected to exercise his judicial mind and he should not be swallowed by technicalities. Everybody got a right to take part in a judicial proceeding preferred by him or filed against him and nobody should have a feeling that his case has not been heard by the Court properly. So far as the revision petitioner is concerned, he is permitted by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to file the written statement, of course, within the time provided by the Code or within the time allowed by the trial Court. However, it is not as if the Court is powerless to take care of situations, like the present one, wherein the revision petitioner being the defendant in the suit failed to file the written statement within a period of 90 days.