P.G. Agarwal, J.
1. This revision under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order passed on 28.2.2003 and 21.3.2003 by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 2 at Tinsukia in Title Suit No. 3/2002, re-numbered as T. S. 2 of 2002.
2. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the opposite party/plaintiff.
3. The facts in brief are that the opposite party plaintiff Md. Isa instituted the above mentioned Title Suit stating, inter alia, that the suit land and premises belongs to the plaintiff and the present petitioner defendant was a tenant but the tenant has refused to pay the monthly rent on time and, thus, has become a defaulter and the defendant is also making some addition or alteration to the suit premises without the consent of the owner. The plaintiff therefore prayed for a decree for recovery of vacant Khas possession, eviction of the defendant and recovery of the arrear rent, etc., and permanent injunction.
4. The present petitioner defendant put his appearance and prayed for time to file the written statement on 14.6.2002 and thereafter he prayed for time to file written statement from time to time and on 16.11.2002 also the petitioner prayed for time but the prayer was rejected. Thereafter on 6.12.2002 the plaintiff's evidence was recorded and thereafter the defendant was allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff. On 14.2.2003 the defendant filed his written statement and prayed for acceptance of the same. The trial court vide the impugned order dated 28.2.2003 refused to accept the prayer of acceptance of the written statement and documents filed by him. However, it allowed the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff on the next date. Vide the impugned order dated 21.3.2003 the Court allowed the defendant to adduce evidence and make arguments when the defendant declined to cross examine the plaintiff. In this revision petition the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and direction for acceptance of the written statement and documents.
5. Shri D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner defendant was fair enough to submit that there was no doubt certain lapses on the part of the defendant to prosecute his case before the trial court but for the ends of justice the petitioner's written statement may be allowed to be accepted and he may be allowed to contest the proceeding.
6. The Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002 has become effective from 1st of July, 2002. Order VIII Rule 1 reads as follows :
'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.'
7. Learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff has submitted that in view of the above provisions there is no scope on the part of the trial court to grant time beyond the total period of 90 days. As a rule, the written statement is to be filed within 30 days from the date of service of summons and thereafter the trial court has discretion to grant further time up to 60 days. As we know the amendment to the CPC has been brought about after great deliberations with a view to expedite disposal of civil proceeding. The provisions has been made very specific and clear regarding the filing of the written statement and admittedly the written statement was not filed within the prescribed period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the summons and in the, present case even 90 days from the date of appearance before the Court. We are of the view that any dilution of the above provision will defeat the very purpose for which the provisions were amended and enacted.
8. There is a legal maxim - 'Expressio Unies Est Exclusion Alterius' (If a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and no other manner and following of oilier course is not desirable). The above maxim has been followed by the Courts by providing that where a statute requires to do a certain tiling in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. In the recent case of Dhananjay Reddy v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 4 SCC 9, the Apex Court followed the above rule adopted in Tailor v. Tailor and Nazir Ahmed, AIR 1993 PC 253.
9. We, therefore, hold that the written statement is required to be filed within the time frame provided under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC and in ease of defendant's failure to do so, the Court shall have no discussion in the matter.
10. It is also submitted that for the ends of justice an opportunity may be given to the petitioner under Section 151 of the CPC or under Article 227 of the Constitution. In the present case, we find that the trial court had allowed the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff and also adduce evidence although the written statement was not accepted. The impugned order was passed in accordance with law and as per the specific provisions contained in the CFC and we, therefore, hold that no interference in this case is called for. The revision, therefore, stands dismissed.