DILIP TARAFDER Vs. MONIKA TARAFDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been preferred against the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, 3rd Court at Alipore in Mat. Suit No. 4 of 2004 on 24th June, 2003.

(2.) Heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party.

(3.) In moving the application, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Court allowed the opposite party to file written statement after expiry of the statutory period without assigning any reason. Referring to Kailash v. Nankhu & Ors. reported in 2005 (4) SCC 480, it is submitted that extension of time beyond the limits laid down in Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and the proviso thereof, as amended, could only be made by way of exception and that too, by assigning reasons. There must be an order in writing by the learned Court as to its satisfaction, however brief it may be. The learned Court concerned is required to spell out that departure from the time schedule prescribed in Order 8 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and the proviso thereof, as amended, is being allowed because of the circumstances which are exceptional in nature and occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and as such extension is required in the interest of justice. Straightway extension of time without assigning the reasons cannot be permissible.