VIGNESHPRABHU Vs. PARAMESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed to direct the learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur to number the unnumbered the IA.SR.NO.4657 of 2019 in O.S.No.78 of 2018, on file.

(2.) The revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S. No.78 of 2018 for recovery of amount of Rs.40,11,800/-with interest and cost, before the learned Principal District Judge, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has filed a interlocutory application in unnumbered IA.SR.NO.4657 of 2019 in O.S.No.78 of 2018, under 8 Rule 1 and 10 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to not to permit the respondent from filing any written statement to the main suit and also written statement if any filed in the meanwhile will also be taken off from the record and the same may returned by the learned Principal District Judge, Srivilliputhur. However, the said I.A. was returned stating that written statement already filed. Aggrieved over the same, the instant Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(3.) According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, as per Order 8 Rule 1 and 10 of Civil Procedure Code, the defendant has not taken any steps to file a written statement within 120 days from the date of filing as per the amended Proviso in Order 8, Rule 1. He also relied upon the Judgment reported in 2019(2) CTC 294, SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K.S. Chamankar infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and Others, wherein the Court held that if the written statement is not filed within 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record. Therefore, he contended that the Court below should not have rejected the application, but on the other hand should have numbered the application and pass an order on merits.