SHAILAJA A SAWANT Vs. SAYAJIRAO GANPATRAO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) RULE. Returnable forthwith. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents in all the writ petitions, waive service. Heard finally by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) THIS batch of writ petitions basically challenges the orders passed by the trial Court either allowing the defendant to file the written statement after the period' prescribed under Order 8. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (for short, "the CPC") or disallowing the defendant from doing so on the ground that it was not presented within such period. The question, therefore, that falls for my consideration in these writ petitions is whether after the 2002 amendment to Order 3, Rule 1 of the CPC upon expiry of a period of 90 days from the service of the writ of summons upon the defendant, the defendant is wholly and absolutely barred from filing his written statement. In other words, whether the defendant cannot, under any circumstances, be permitted to file the written statement after expiry of the period of 90 days from the date of service the writ of summons as prescribed by Order 8, Rule 1. The code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 Mill be hereinafter referred to as the "recent amendment" while code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 will be referred to as "1999 Amendment", for the sake of brevity and convenience. Since no factual adjudication is involved in any of the writ petitions, a brief reference to the facts of the first two writ petitions, one filed by the plaintiff and other by the defendant, will suffice.