MACHIPEDDI REMASWAMY Vs. P BUCHI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 27 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy. The suit was filed for recovery of money. According to the petitioner, the suit summons were served on the sole defendant/respondent herein on 10-5-2002. The defendant appeared through counsel before the Court on 13-6-2002 and the Court granted time for filling written statement from time to time. Ultimately on 9-10-2002, the defendant filed a written statement and the Court accepted the same. None the less, the petitioner filed an application being I.A. No. 390 of 2002 under Order VIII, Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC 1908 as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1999 (Act 46 of 1999) and the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 2002 (Act 22 of 2002). The petitioner prayed the trial Court to pronounce the judgment by rejecting the written statement filed by the defendant. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 3-3-2003 dismissed the petitioner's application holding that the defendant filed the written statement within the time permitted by the Court and therefore a judgment cannot be pronouncement as per Rule 10 of Order VIII, CPC.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K. Srinivas submits that Order VIII, Rule 1, CPC as amended by Act 46 of 1999 has to be strictly interpreted having regard to the spirit with which the amendments were brought into force. According to the learned counsel, the Civil Court is not entitled to extend time beyond 30 days from the date of service of summons on the defendant/defendants for filing written statement and as the defendant has not filed the written statement within 90 days as required under Order VIII, Rule 1, CPC, the lower Court ought to have pronounced the judgment or order.

(3.) This revision petition is filed under Section 115, CPC. As per the said section as amendment by Act 46 of 1999, the petitioner has to show that if his I.A. had been allowed, the same would have resulted in the disposal of the suit itself. As the petitioner prayed for pronouncement of the judgment and had it been allowed, it would have resulted in the disposal of the suit itself, the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable.