(1.) THIS revision is directed against order dated 20.1.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Court No. 9) exercising power of Judge, Small Causes Court in S.C.C. Suit No. 16 of 2003 whereby the learned Judge declined to accept the written statement filed by defendant -revisionist on 20.12.1994 and to take the same on record. Plaintiff -opposite party had filed a suit under Small Causes Court Act being S.C.C. Suit No. 16 of 2003, Mohd. Naseem v. Mohd. Shahzad Khan. The defendant -revisionist filed written statement on 20.12.1994 beyond the period prescribed under Order VIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. learned Trial Court, therefore, declined to accept the same and take on record.
(2.) CONTENTION of learned Counsel for the defendant -revisionist is that the provision tinder Rule 1 of Order VIII as amended by amending Act No. 22 of 2002 is not applicable to the cases under the Small Causes Court Act for the reason that in cases under Small Causes Court Act the notice is issued fixing a date only for hearing of the S.C.C. case and not separate dates for filing the written statement and date for hearing. Learned Counsel further submitted that learned Court below without properly appreciating this fact and also without going through the reasons resulting in filing of the written statement beyond the period prescribed under Order VIII, Rule 1, wrongly declined to accept and take on record the written statement. Before coming to the question raised, for convenience sake Order VIII, Rule 1, C.P.C., which deals with the filing of written statement, may be extracted here below: - -
(3.) FROM the above provision, it is clear that the defendant has to file a written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summon on him. However, as per the proviso, the written statement can be accepted even beyond 30 days upto 60 days more if the Court finds reasons to be recorded in writing but there is a specific bar prohibiting extension of time for filing of written statement beyond this period of 60 days.