IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4484 of 2009 Between: Chevvakula Suryaprakasa Rao. … Petitioner And Chevvakula Mangatayaru and two others. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4484 of 2009 ORDER: - This revision is filed by the petitioner/defendant against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Razole dated 16.07.2009 dismissing the I.A.No.424 of 2009 in O.S.No.86 of 2008 filed under Order VIII Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code (for brevity, “the C.P.C.”), to set aside the ex parte order passed against the petitioner dated 01.06.2009. Petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent- wife, on her behalf and on behalf of the minor child for maintenance, claiming Rs.7,000/- per month and the same is posted to 01.06.2009 for filing the written statement of the petitioner. The respondent/plaintiff also filed M.C.No.4 of 2007, seeking maintenance against the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Razole and orders were pronounced on 19.05.2009. Since, the petitioner has not chosen to file the written statement in the suit, he was set ex parte. Thereby, the petitioner filed I.A.No.424 of 2009 pleading that due to want of orders passed in M.C.No.4 of 2007 on 19.05.2009 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Razole, he could not file his written statement on 01.06.2009, which resulted in his setting ex parte and, therefore, sought for setting aside the ex parte order, permitting him to contest the suit on merits. The lower court dismissed the I.A. holding that getting the copy of the order passed in M.C. is not a hurdle to file a written statement in the above suit. Since it is mandatory under Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C., filing of written statement within 30 days from the date of receipt of summons, at the best the court may extend the maximum time for 90 days from the date of receipt of summons by recording reasons and as the petitioner failed to file the written statement, he was rightly set ex parte and the same needs no interference. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of service of notice, the respondents have not chosen to put up appearance, opposing the revision. It is brought to the notice of this court in M.C.No.4 of 2007 filed by the respondent-wife a sum of Rs.7,000/- has been awarded towards maintenance i.e., Rs.3,000/- for the wife and Rs.2,000/- each to the minor child. In view of the same, the petitioner has to take a necessary plea in the written statement about the amount awarded and the entitlement of the respondents/plaintiffs for further maintenance in the suit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saleem Advocates’ Bar Asociation, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, categorically held that fixing the time limit of 90 days will not oost the jurisdiction of the Court from extending the time for a justifiable reason. In view of the same, though the learned trial court noted the above decision, failed to exercise its jurisdiction in setting aside the ex parte order and permitting the petitioner to file the written statement. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and I.A. filed by the petitioner stands allowed granting two weeks time for filing written statement from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before the lower Court. On filing such written statement, the lower court is directed to proceed with the matter and dispose of the suit expeditiously. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J) 20.11.2009. Lmv