IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P. No:4118 of 2010 Date:22.10.2010 Between: Sanapala Appanna ..... PETITIONER AND Bhupatiraj Balabhadra Raj .....RESPONDENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P. No:4118 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is against the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa in I.A.No.173 of 2010 in O.S.No.100 of 2009 dated 23.08.2010. I.A.No.173 of 2010 was filed, under Order IX Rule 7 C.P.C, requesting the Court below to set aside the ex-parte order dated 21.06.2010, and to permit the petitioner-defendant to contest the suit by receiving the counter in I.A.No.173 of 2010, and the written statement in the suit. In the order under revision, the Court below held that on 21.06.2010 the present counsel had filed Vakalat but no written statement was filed, and hence the petitioner/defendant was set exparte; before the next date of adjournment itself he had come up with a petition to set aside the exparte order; it was evident from the petition that the petitioner-defendant had changed his Advocate, and he could not file written statement within time; the only cause he had put forth, for non filing of the written statement, is a change of Vakalat and the Counsel; admittedly the defendant was served with summons on 04.12.2009; the 90 days period for filing the written statement had expired by 03.03.2010; the Court had set him exparte on 21.06.2010 i.e., three and half of months after the 90 days period; and, during this period, the defendant never envisaged any interest to file written statement. The Court below relied on the decisions in Gautham Bhowmic v. Prem Chand[1] and Kailash v. Nankhee[2]. The Court below held that change of an Advocate, or inability to give him instructions, cannot be a good ground for accepting the written statement after 90 days; it has now become a normal practice for parties to change their counsel, throw the burden on the previous counsels, and allege that they have been misguided by the previous counsel; and, as the only ground for seeking to have the ex-parte order set aside for change of counsel, is not tenable, there were no justifiable reasons to condone the delay in filing the written statement upon setting aside the exparte order. It is no doubt true that, under Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C, a written statement is required to be filed within 30 days from the date of service of summons, and the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing has the power to permit the defendant to file the written statement within a period thereafter which shall not be later than 90 days from the date of service of summons. This provision, it is not in dispute, has been held to be directory in Zolba v. Keshao[3], wherein the Supreme Court held that the Court can permit the written statement to be filed even after 90 days in exceptional circumstances. In the case on hand, the petitioner has changed his counsel evidently as his previous counsels was not evincing interest in the matter. The delay of three and half months, beyond the 90 day period, is not so inordinate as to justify refusal by the Court below to condone the delay and receive the written statement. Sri D. Ramalinga Swamy, Learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff fairly states that the petitioner-defendant had filed his written statement along with the application in I.A.No.173 of 2010. Since the written statement has already been filed, I consider it appropriate to set aside the exparte order of the Court below dated 21.06.2010, and direct the Court below to receive the written statement of the petitioner- defendant on condition that petitioner deposits Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) before the Court below to the credit of O.S.No.100 of 2009 within three weeks from today. On such deposit, the respondent-plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the said amount. The Court below shall receive the written statement already filed and take further steps to dispose of the Suit in accordance with law. The civil revision petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:22.10.2010. Gk. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P. No:4118 of 2010 Date:22.10.2010 Gk [1] 2010 STPL (Web) 247 Delhi [2] AIR 2005 S.C., 3304 [3] 2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 769