THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.5016 of 2009 Date: 09.11.2010 Between: R.Eswar. ……….. Petitioner/plaintiff. And R.Ashok Kumar and others. ……. Respondents/defendants. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.5016 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision is directed against the order dated 22.7.2009 passed in I.A.No.857 of 2009 in O.S.No.593 of 2007 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner herein filed the suit for partition. Respondents 1 & 2 herein, who are the defendants 2 & 5 before the trial Court, were set exparte on 27.6.2007. They filed I.A.No.857 of 2009 to set aside the exparte order and permit them to file written statement. The 1st respondent herein R.Ashok Kumar filed an affidavit in support of the petition. It is his case and that he and respondent Nos.4 & 5 herein are the step brothers of the petitioner herein and the 2nd respondent herein is a step mother but the petitioner herein in his plaint had suppressed this fact. It is also his case that after receiving summons in the suit, they approached Sri B.Chetan, Advocate, Gouli Guda, Hyderabad and entrusted the case to him, who in turn, obtained their signatures on some typed matter and they were under bonafide impression that B.Chetan, Advocate was appearing on their behalf and defending their case. Their further case is that in February, 2009, Sri B.Chethan, Advocate died and when they approached his daughter B.S.Radhika, Advocate, she informed that she filed Vakalath on their behalf and that they had obtained no objection vakalath from her and engaged another advocate. It is also their case is that the original Will dated 29.10.2004, which was handed over to B.Chethan, Advocate could not be traced in the office of Sri B.Chetan and after tracing it they filed the present application and therefore, there was delay in filing the application. The impunged order reveals that the counsel appearing for the petitioner herein before the lower Court reported no counter and in the above circumstances, the I.A was allowed on payment of costs of Rs.100/- and costs were paid and consequently, the I.A was allowed. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not received the costs and had not reported no counter. The next point raised by him is that after the amendment of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 specific time limit has been prescribed for filing the written statement, if the defendants, who were set exparte, are allowed to file written statements now the very purpose of limiting the period to file the written statement would be defeated. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 relying on the judgment reported in Nachipeddi Ramaswamy v. P.Buchi Reddy[1] and Shaik Kareem v. Mohd.Khursheed Ali[2], submits that the law is well settled that Order 8, Rule 1 CPC prescribing time for filing written statement is directory but not mandatory and it does not impose absolute embargo on the Court to extend time in deserving genuine cases. Point No.1:- The points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether Court docket orders can be disputed and (2) Whether there are any merits in the revision. The Court proceedings when culminated into docket orders cannot be challenged and factum of such proceedings cannot be disputed. They reveal what had factually occurred on that day unless ill motive is attributed to the presiding officer of the court and contents are utterly false and against the record, such proceedings can never he disputed. Having reported no counter and having received costs, a party or any counsel appearing on behalf of any party, cannot deny the factum of such docket proceedings. Point No.2: The very purpose of amendment to the C.P.C in 1999 or in 2002 is only to expedite the disposal of the civil matters. The Courts, having regard to the facts and circumstances of any particular case if satisfied may permit the parties to file written statement beyond the period of 90 days. It is now settled law that the direction of filing written statement within 90 days is not mandatory and it is only a directory and ultimately it is the discretion of the Court either to permit or not permit a party to file a written statement even after a period of 90 days. The other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not allowed to file any counter and he was not heard also cannot be accepted in view of the specific docket orders passed by the lower Court. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court reported in Manduva Srinivasa Rao v. Sajana Granites, Madras and others[3] wherein it was observed that where in a case no good reason is shown in support of their application under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC, such application is liable to be rejected. It is true that while considering an application under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC., the Courts have to consider whether the petitioner had shown valid reasons or not and where the defendant appears and assigns good cause for his previous non-appearance, the exparte order may be set aside upon such terms as the Court thinks fit and proper. In this case, it is not in dispute that B.Chetan, Advocate died in February-2009. The contention of the petitioner is that he was under the bonafide impression that Sri B.Chetan, Advocate was appearing on his behalf and defending his case and that subsequently, there was a delay in tracing the original Will from the office of Sri Chetan reveals that they have shown sufficient cause for their previous non- appearance. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date:09.11.2010 mrb [1] 2003 (4) ALT 642 [2] 2006 (1) ALD 857 [3] AIR 1997 ANDHRA PRADESH 49.