IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26417 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SHIJI, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN VADAYATTUKUNNEL VEEDU, MULLAKKANAM KARA RAJAKADU VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) RESPONDENT: ---------------- SANTHA.T.K., D/O. KAMALAKSHI, KUNNATHUTHAZHE VEEDU, KALLIMALI KARA RAJAKKADU VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26417 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd September, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the defendant and respondent the plaintiff in O.S.No.96 of 2007, on the file of Sub Court, Kattapana. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P4 order passed in I.A.No.543 of 2008, an application filed by the petitioner-first defendant to receive his written statement, which was not filed within the period provided under Rule 1 of Order VIII of Code of Civil Procedure. Under Ext.P4 order, learned Munsiff dismissed the application holding that no special circumstance was pointed out. 2. In view of the order to be passed in this writ petition, I do not find it necessary to issue notice to the respondent. 3. Ext.P4 order shows that summons was served on the petitioner on 14.8.2007. Under Rule 1 of Order VIII of Code of Civil Procedure, a written statement is to be filed within 30 days from that date. It also provides for filing a written statement within 90 days. But that does not mean that court is not competent to receive a W.P.(C) No.26417 of 2008 2 written statement, if filed beyond the period of 90 days for sufficient reasons to be recorded. Necessarily, reasons are to be shown to receive the written statement, if not filed within 90 days. Learned Sub Judge dismissed the application on the ground that no special circumstance which prevented petitioner in complying with Rule 1 of Order VIII was established. I do not find any illegality in that finding. But in view of the submission by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that an opportunity is to be granted to file an additional affidavit disclosing valid reasons shown for receiving the written statement, Ext.P4 order is quashed. Learned Sub Judge is directed to re-consider I.A.No.543 of 2008, and pass appropriate orders afresh, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file an additional written affidavit in support of the petition. Writ petition is disposed as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.