- (1.)THE petitioner is a tenant in respect of premises bearing No. 43/ 6 ground floor, Vth Main, Ganghinagar, Bangalore -9. The respondent who is the owner of the aforesaid premises has filed a suit SC No. 1603/2002 on the file of learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, bangalore, for ejectment of the petitioner. In the said suit, the petitioner was served with summons on 28. 10. 2002 and the petitioner appeared before Court and sought for time to file written statement. The matter was posted to 7. 12. 2002 for filing of the written statement. On that day again a request was made for extension of time for filing written statement. It was granted and the case was adjourned to 18. 1. 2003 for filing of the written statement. On that day, again a request was made for grant of some time to file written statement. However, the learned Judge refused to grant the time for filing written statement. But the learned Judge did not proceed to pass a judgment and decree as contemplated under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC for not filing the written statement, but he adjourned the case for evidence to 17. 2. 2003. On 17. 2. 2003 the petitioner filed his written statement along with the application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file written statement, stating out the reason for not filing the written statement in accompanying affidavit. The said application filed by the petitioner for permission to file the written statement came to be rejected on the ground that the Court has no power to grant time for filing written statement after expiry of 90 days period from the date of service of summons. The said order dated 17. 2. 2003 refusing to grant time to file written statement is challenged in this Writ Petition.
(2.)AFTER amendment of the Civil Procedure Code by Act 46/1989 and by the Act of 22/2002 where procedural law has been substantially amended prescribing the time limit for filing the written statement, when statements were not filed in time the Courts below were passing orders rejecting the request to receive the written statement after the stipulated period on the ground that the Courts have no jurisdiction to receive the written statement. In view of the amendment the question that arise for my consideration are:
(a) What is the object behind these amendments, fixing a period for filing the written statement?

(b) Whether in a given case the Court is precluded from receiving the written statement filed beyond the period stipulated?

(3.)IN order to answer these questions, it is necessary to have a look at the amendments carried out to the various provisions dealing with written statement. Order 5 Rule 1 of CPC, which deals with summons, has been extensively amended as under: 1. Summons -
(1) When a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the written statement of his defence, if any, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on that defendant: provided that no such summons shall be issued when a defendant has appeared at the presentation of plaint and admitted the plaintiff?s claim: provided further that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons?. Correspondingly, Order 8 Rule 1, which deals with written statement, also has been extensively amended as under: 1. Written statement - The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence; provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. ? order 8 Rule 5

(2) of CPC reads as under: (2) Where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, but the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved?. Similarly, Order 8 Rule 9, which deals with subsequent pleadings, also has been amended, reads as under: 9. Subsequent pleadings - No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit; but the court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same. ? order 8 Rule 10 deals with procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by the Court, and it reads as under: 10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court - Where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up. ? one other provision, which requires to be noticed in this context is, Section 148 of CPC, which deals with enlargement of time, which reads as under: 148 Enlargement of time - Where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, the Court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period, not exceeding thirty days in total, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired?
.