MULKH RAJ Vs. VIAS RAK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12th May, 2010 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Kathua, by virtue of which written statement filed on behalf of respondents/defendant Nos.2 to 7 on 08.04.2010 has been taken on record much after the time limit prescribed under Order 8, Rule 1 of the CPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant petition has challenged the order dated 12.05.2010, on the grounds that the said impugned order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Kathua is contrary to the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because the written statement has to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of service of summons. It is averred in the petition that such written statement has not been filed within time. However, defendants/respondents herein sought for extension of time beyond 30 days for filing the written statement and the same could have been allowed by the learned Trial Court only for the reasons to be recorded in writing, but in any case no written statement could have been filed after the expiry of 90 days. It is averred in the petition that even after the expiry of 90 days written statement has been filed and the same has been taken on record.

(3.) In the petition it is averred that the judgment relied upon in the impugned order dated 12.05.2010 has not been properly appreciated by the Court below, thus the aforesaid impugned order runs contrary to the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.