N. Krishnan Nair Vs. Sivasankaran Pillai and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. section 100-a [as substituted by c.p.c. amendment act, 2002]: [v.k. bali, cj, kurian joseph & k. balakrishnan nair, jj] applicability held, section is not retrospective. all appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. but subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro court appeals against judgment of single judge is not maintainable. provisions of section 100-a, c.p.c., will prevail over the provisions contained in the kerala high court act, 1959. orders. sankarasubban, j.1. plaintiff has approached this court through this revision challenging the order passed by the court below in i.a. no. 2183 of 2002. defendants in this case were made ex parte. subsequently, an ex parte decree was passed and thereafter order 9, rule 13 petition was filed to set aside the ex parte decree. now that has been allowed by the court below on costs. but learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order 8, rule 1 prescribes time within which written statement has to be filed. according to the learned counsel, at any rate under order 8, rule 1 the period of time does not exceed 90 days. on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents brought to my notice the decision reported in nachipeddi ramaswamy v. buchi reddy, air 2003 ap 409. that decision says that the mentioning of 90 days does not prevent the court from extending time as under section 148, the court has got power to extend the time. according to me, under order 9, rule 13, the court can look into the ground and allow or reject the same. according to me, even if the written statement is not filed within 90 days, the court can under order 9, rule 13, set aside the ex parte decree and grant time to file written statement.2. learned counsel for the respondents submitted that already costs have been deposited. in the above view of the matter, i don't find any ground to interfere in the matter. civil revision petition is dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

S. Sankarasubban, J.

1. Plaintiff has approached this Court through this revision challenging the order passed by the Court below in I.A. No. 2183 of 2002. Defendants in this case were made ex parte. Subsequently, an ex parte decree was passed and thereafter Order 9, Rule 13 petition was filed to set aside the ex parte decree. Now that has been allowed by the Court below on costs. But learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Order 8, Rule 1 prescribes time within which written statement has to be filed. According to the learned counsel, at any rate under Order 8, Rule 1 the period of time does not exceed 90 days. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents brought to my notice the decision reported in Nachipeddi Ramaswamy v. Buchi Reddy, AIR 2003 AP 409. That decision says that the mentioning of 90 days does not prevent the Court from extending time as under Section 148, the Court has got power to extend the time. According to me, under Order 9, Rule 13, the Court can look into the ground and allow or reject the same. According to me, even if the written statement is not filed within 90 days, the Court can under Order 9, Rule 13, set aside the ex parte decree and grant time to file written statement.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that already costs have been deposited. In the above view of the matter, I don't find any ground to interfere in the matter. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.