PANDURANG ALIAS SHASHI DESSAI Vs. BERALDIN TAVAERES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner/defendant is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 30 June, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao declining to grant the application filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time to file the written statement in the pending civil suit.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant, Mr. Usgaonkar contended that now the law is well settled that under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure, the provision contemplating that the written statement should be filed normally within 30 days and in any event the time can be extended only upto 90 days and thereafter in a given case the Court can even grant time beyond the aforesaid period of 90 days.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted that in the instant case the defendant had not adopted any dilatory tactics and he had filed the reply to the interlocutory proceedings within seven days of being served with the proceedings. He submitted that the reply filed in the interlocutory proceedings is almost similar to the written statement. Mr. Usgaoncar also contended that the respondent herein had filed an application for tendering additional documents and thereafter the petitioner-defendant had filed an application for appointment of a Commissioner. Both these applications were disposed of. An amendment application was made by the respondent-plaintiff. Mr. Usgaoncar pointed out that the petitioner was served with the copy of the written summons on 10 December, 2003 and as such the petitioner-defendant ought to have filed the written Statement within 30 days as per order VIII, Rule 1 Code of the Civil Procedure i. e. on or before 9 January, 2003. He contended that there were negotiations between the parties to settle the matter and that the earlier Advocate for the plaintiff-respondent took a discharge and another Advocate was appointed and also in view of the aforementioned applications by the plaintiff and defendant were being taken, the plaintiff could not file the written statement within 30 days and also within the period of 90 days as provided under Order VIII, rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. The written statement was sought to be tendered on 28 april, 2003 which was opposed to by the Advocate for the plaintiff and ultimately the court, by the impugned order, found no ground made out to condone the delay and rejected the said application.