Mahadevamma and anr. Vs. Mahadevamma and anr.

.....who are in charge of the affairs of the state are totally negligent and oblivious of the case of the plaintiff, certainly the court has the power to reject the prayer for extension of time for filing the written statement notwithstanding the fact that such a request is made by public officer, who is a defendant. however, it is necessary to point out that while considering the request for extension of time, the court has to keep in mind that the defendant is an officer of the state and the officer of the state cannot act like a private party and take an independent decision and on many occasions, the decisions will have to be taken in consultation with several departments or officers of the state. the provisions contained in rule 7 of order xxvii of the cpc, must be understood as an exception to the provisions contained in order viii rule 1 of the cpc enabling the court to extend the time granted to file the written statement if the facts and circumstances pleaded calls for grant of extension of time.; (b) code of civil procedure, 1908-order 27 rule 7(2) word 'shall' used-whether mandatory or directory in nature-held-depending upon the purposes and circumstances under which the word 'shall' is used and depending upon the consequences that would follow the word 'shall' could be used as 'may' and the word 'may' could be used as 'shall'. in this court's view though sub-rule (2) of rule 7 of order 27 provides that the court shall extend the time for so long as it appears to it to be necessary the said provision has to be considered as directory and not mandatory and it should be understood as the said provision conferring discretion on the court either to extend the time sought for by defendant, who is a public officer, or not to extend the time. the court has to make up its mind as to whether the time should be granted or not depending upon the circumstances pleaded for extension of time and keeping in mind whether the extension of time sought for is reasonable.....order 27 rule 7(2) word 'shall' used-whether mandatory or directory in nature-held-depending upon the purposes and circumstances under which the word 'shall' is used and depending upon the consequences that would follow the word 'shall' could be used as 'may' and the word 'may' could be used as 'shall'. in this court's view though sub-rule (2) of rule 7 of order 27 provides that the court shall extend the time for so long as it appears to it to be necessary the said provision has to be considered as directory and not mandatory and it should be understood as the said provision conferring discretion on the court either to extend the time sought for by defendant, who is a public officer, or not to extend the time. the court has to make up its mind as to whether the time should be granted or not depending upon the circumstances pleaded for extension of time and keeping in mind whether the extension of time sought for is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. (c) civil procedure code, 1908-