RAM SARAN Vs. KHAZANI
LAWS(ALL)-2004-12-16
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on December 02,2004

RAM SARAN Appellant
VERSUS
KHAZANI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NANKU V.KAILASH AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
A. SATHYAPAL AND ORS. V. SMT. YASMIN BANU ANSARI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.)A suit for possession and damages for use and occupation was filed by the plaintiff/ respondent, which has been decreed by both the courts below applying the provisions" of Order VIII, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code. The plaint was presented on 20.5.2002 but it is not in dispute that the full court fee was not then paid. The suit was registered on 27.8.2002 after payment of court fee on that very day. The amendments by the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act 22 of 2001 had come into force with effect from 1st July, 2002 which was after the presentation of the plaint and before the registration of the suit. Summons were issued on 2.9.2002 fixing 3.10.2002 for appearance of the defendant and for filing of the written statement and 10.10.2002 for issues. The defendant/appellant appeared and sought adjournment on 10.10.2002 for filing the written statement. The Court granted time. On 21.1.2003 the case was adjourned to enable the defendant to file written statement and the Court fixed 4.3.2003. On 4.3.2003 the defendant again sought adjournment and the Court adjourned the case but passed an order that no further time would be granted and fixed 8.5.2003. On 8.5.2003 there was a strike of the lawyers and again the case was adjourned to 27.5.2003 on which date the defendant/ appellant sought adjournment, which was refused and the right to file written statement was forfeited. It appears that the defendant moved an application for taking the written statement on the record, which application was rejected by the trial court on 11.9.2003. The suit was then decreed under Order VIII, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code on 19.9.2003. The appeal against the decree filed by the appellant was dismissed.
(2.)I have heard Sri Dhan Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Pankaj Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent.
(3.)Under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code before the amendment the Court had discretion to extend the time for filing the written statement without limit. The proviso to the amended Order VIII, Rule 1 however limits this discretion to a period of 90 days from the date of service of summons upon the defendant.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.