Bench:
P.V Shetty, H Ramesh
Issue:
Whether the court has the discretion for extending the time limit of 90 days for filing the written statement if it’s reasonable?
Facts:
- Defendant was served with summons and he was given 90 days ,as is given in such a case, to file his written statement.
- The defendant is a public officer of the State who wants to extend the 90 days limit of filing the written statement.
- The officer of the State cannot act like a private party.
- The question before the court is whether the court is justified in granting the extension of time , especially to a public officer and also make sure that the reason for which is reasonable and is not delaying the proceedings of the case.
Appellant's contentions:
- It is not reasonable for the court to extend the time to file written statement as provided in Rule 1 Order VIII of CPC.
- In Sathyapal Vs Yasim Banu Ansari, extension of time was not given.
Respondent's contentions:
- The defendant is a public officer and he wants the extension of time as it is necessary for him to be given more than 90 days to file his statement.
- Under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of Order XXVII , if the defendant is a public officer, then he can apply to the court to grant such extension.
- Sub-rule 2 of Rule 7 of Order XXVII states that if the application is made, the court can extend the time as it deems to be necessary.
- In the case of Kailash Vs Nankhu, the defendant being an officer of the state would require a little longer time than a private party
Final judgement:
- The provision is a disability for the defendant &it does not put a restriction on the powers of the Court to extend it.
- Provision is held directory & not mandatory.
- There are no consequences stated of there is non- compliance of such.
Extension is allowed if it’s not in the
