SATYANAYANA DEVI Vs. V SARALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in this appeal A.S.No.176 of 2002 moved an application C.M.P.No.4450 of 2004 in C.M.P.No.1335 of 2002 in A.S.No.176 of 2002 to vacate interim stay granted by this Court on 30-1-2002. This Court in C.M.P.No.1335 of 2002 in A.S.No.176 of 2002 made the following order. "Interim stay of passing of final decree. Rendition of accounts to go in." In this case, both the Counsel while advancing arguments made a request to dispose of the main appeal itself and that's why the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31-10-2001 in O.S.No.20 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, the defendants 1 to 10 in O.S.No.20 of 2001 have preferred the present appeal. It is not in dispute that the matter was coming up for filing of the written statement and though several opportunities were given, since the written statement was not filed by the defendants, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda exercising the powers under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure had accepted the claim of the plaintiff and ultimately, had decreed the suit declaring the respective shares of the plaintiff and defendants and also passed a preliminary decree accordingly with a direction that the defendants shall render accounts of the dissolved firm to the advocate-commissioner to be appointed in final decree proceedings for settling the profits to the extent of the respective shares of the plaintiff and defendants specified in the judgment.

(3.) Sri M. Venkatram Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellants would maintain that no doubt, there were some laches on the part of the appellants- defendants. But, however, the written statement also was prepared but due to their misfortune, the appellants-defendants could not file the written statement and inasmuch as costs had not been paid and the written statement was not filed and there was no representation, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda proceeded to decide the matter exercising the powers under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Counsel would also maintain that the Court is having power to extend time for filing the written statement despite the fact that Order 8 Rule 1 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended by the Act 22 of 2002. The learned Counsel for the appellants relied on Nachipeddi Ramaswamy v. P. Buchi Reddy\ The Counsel also would submit that while the written statement was not filed within time, always, it is not imperative to make exparte judgment and it is within the discretion of the Court either to make exparte judgment or to give further opportunity. The Counsel would also maintain that normally a matter may have to be decided on merits and the practice of making exparte judgments may have to be deprecated. The Counsel also placed strong reliance on Dineshwar Prasad Bakshi v. Parameshwar Prasad Sinha.