IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1784 of 2006 RAM CHANDAR SAH Versus PASPAT SAH & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : - Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the O.Ps. : - Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advocate. ------- 14/ 12.05.2009 Heard both the sides. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.3.2004 by which the petitioner was debarred from filing written statement, he has approached this Court through the present revision petition. The petitioner had earlier preferred Civil Revision No. 45 of 2006 and that appears withdrawn because the Court wanted the petitioner to challenge the impugned order through a proper petition, like, the present one and accordingly, the present petition was preferred. Some of the dates relevant for the present purpose could be noticed. The petitioner appeared in the court below in response to summons served upon him on 3.11.2003 and could not file written statement up till 23.3.2004 when the impugned order was passed. The petitioner filed two petitions on 17.2.2005 and 15.3.2005 praying before the court to recall the impugned order and to accept his written statement which he had filed on the record. These petitions - 2 - were also turned down. It was contended that the petitioner was precluded from circumstances beyond his control to get written statement prepared and printed and present it within the time and above all the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC could not be put into a straight jacket as some discretion is given to the court for extending the period of time from 30 days to 90 days so as to enabling the defendant to file written statement. The learned counsel appearing for the O.Ps. has drawn the attention of the Court to Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC and has submitted that if the written statement could not be filed within 30 days of the service of summons on the petitioner, it could have been filed within 90 days from the date of service of summons, but it was not done. It is well settled that the date on which the petitioner appeared in the suit was that cut off date for the purposes of Order 8 Rule 1 and if one could count 90 days from that date, then one could find that the petitioner might have transgressed the period a bit over, but if he could have a defence and if he could present it before the court through - 3 - a written statement already filed on record then it was within the further discretion of the court to have allowed him to be made part of the record. I direct that the same be made part of the record by setting aside the order impugned. The revision petition is allowed in the above terms. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)