IN THE BIGH COIBIT 0V JIJDICATURE AT BILASPUR PETmQNER WRtT PETITION N0. ...-•lu. . 3Z44- ^^ ^?^<K ^•T;'\>v ,...-^--^- ^^y/' ^'^"^' '^y RESPnNDENTS^ Smt. AnuradhaDubey, W/o Prasen (S. Laxm ikant Dubey, aged 26 years, Occupation-Nil, R/o Village-Kukdur, Post Office-Kukdur, Tahsil- Pandariya, District Kawardha (C.G.) •VERSUS. Prasea @ LaxmikantDubey,S/o Shri Khamhan Dubey, ag?.d 39 years, R/'o KapilNagar. Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) l'i> WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT. ORDER8 OR DIRECTION. ^" ^ IT-.: .*'! ^ ;3^^^Ty,®g^is,'j^Rm: .,.Usl..g:teAs....s&tA^..|.»..<|.. ^TR^ff ^f^^ •t.Hq^R 19-1-2005 ,0n a ment!6n being macie,the ^rtatter'istaken^up for haaring. Shri Rajeey Shrivastava with Shri Indrasen Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. . . / • : | - Shri Anup.Majumdar,c'ounsel for the respondent. The petifipnep has pr'efer'rejd this writ petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitutjbnof Indipt:being aggrievedby theorder dated 27-8-Z004 passed by the 31'd Adijlitionai Districf Jydge, Bildspur j" petition No.50-A/2004 wherebythe jearned Additional &istrict Judge has rejected the prayer of the pe^itioner herein for giving further opportunifyforfiling writteh statem^nt on the ground thatsihcesummons we.re. served upon the petitioner her^in on 7-5-2.Q04 and 90 days' time has expir'ed on 7-8-2004, therefore fu^ther time cannot be grgnted to the respondentto file written statemenl. Brief' facts [eading, to "filing respqndent herein fiied a divocce pe|t'ition under Section 13 of the l-Sjn'elu Marric^e Act, 1955 ag.ainst tSe p^ appearance and filing reply wasiissu^d to the.petitioner herein (ind same was served upon the petit(pner.and the mattel* was fixed on 25-6-2004 of this writ petition are'tha+ the. ttitioner herein, The summons for e appecfred before the Court: first timeon 7-5-2004. The petit|ot)er h4rein..appeQr'ed'beforethetr'iflI(3ourt, gnd on: thaf ddy an ;application uncler Section 24 }of the ,1-iindu^ iWcirr'iqg^ Act was filedon'beiialf'of.l'he feti^l^dSP" J'lfc.r'^in und TfE.Si.T ^yl!i& >¥iRjtS fiAc.d Tvt1 Tili^y ^11& t''^i^!V '&f:^T^S- -I •• -f- Gi;PRj_ps/35fr-'-i2^r!00—5Q,600. XI-HG—78 3ift?r'^i1?:;riq? '!WI STt^T'**ii* ^sr •<ji'4M<<, atiiy'is, i°<ini'yy< *1!*ICTi «»N!t*l "^200 311^1 tpRi'(' ^) tlfet SII^B ^al: wtos iication. Qn 27-7-2004 repiy and.on that, next ddte i On 24-8-2004, the matter under Section 23 (2) of thf proceedings were also taken therefore, the matter wcts application uhder Section 24 arguments were heard and ti^ the time for filing written s1 which was declined by the tri< I hdve heard learned Learned counsel for th| matter wasfJxed for reply 24 of the Hindu Marriage A( written staternent, therefor'j that the matter is fixed for.l 24 of the Hindu Marriqge Acl filed. The application was sought and the same was re^ impugned order is contrary t^ while relying upon the deeisi^n matter of Mithumal and otKI anbther anti ^iAfitvt*?t''t ^T^^ ^f is^l ^ff^R ^i'sifro gii^si eAunsel adjournment was sought for filmg the |e. 24-8-2004jwasfixed for filing the reply. also fixed for reconcjliari;ion as provided ^ Act and on the said date reconciliation up, but settlement cpuld not be arrived, ]\xed for 27-8-2004 for arguments on the t^f theHinduAtarriageAct.On 27-8-2004, e application wgs decided. Simi.iltaneously, Ijatement of the petition was also asked fop Court. . ' . j>unse] forthe parties. ', ^ petitioner argued fhat since beginhing the arguments on fhe application under Section ^t and the matter was not fixed fpr filing ;, the petitioner was under th®impression arguments on the gpplication under Section t, therefor'e, vuritten statement couid not be on 27-8-2004 and ori that day, ti me was ^used, therefore, in the.circumstances, the the prpyisions of the Act. Learned counsel n]of the AAadhyaPradesh Hjg!'i <%ur't^in 1-he srs v. Xayjta and others report-ed [in 2003 dedided (3) M.P. L.j. 560 argued thdt.in exceptjoha! icctses time can belaxtended. ^ST'"yWl('l<<,^-tt)'(Hti<o,.i(®!si,i*iy.; '3ti^r:^T('jqS^<t<r) SII^t'Rl<(-< . WI SII^CT »*fla> •naw;Sft<i•si^i| — g,- <i()t^t!?:l:4t';l *^i*i^ ^f Is^ <t^E^i< %3iRmai^i:i'^- . 'Y On the other hand;lear|r in no cir'cymstances time 6eyo(|cl .is not entitled toiextend thel consQnance with the provisionj counsel for pespondent retied in the matter of^&r. Nandd another I'-epprt-ed in AIR 20(}5 decision df Karnataka 1-iigh Coijt Smt. Nagaratha and others (|< ^ Havirig heard learhed c< records and relevant judgmehtt 8 of the C.P.C.envi5ages fhflt 1|hi the date of service of summoni defence; provided that when stffl'ement within the^aid perii .th&samepnsuchotherday/as to be recorded' in writirig, byt from the cfate of seFvice of provision mgkes it clear tha")" as^ bounden duty to fEle written. sl service pf summons ori him an< written stfft-ement^ within his led counsel for respondentsubmifted tliat 90days,canheextended; Eventhe Court time, therefore, the impugnedorder is in of Order 8 Rule 1 of the C.P.G. Learned tpon a decision of the AllahaBdd 1-iigh Courl' [Agrawal y. Matri Manelip, ^Voranast and ALLAHABA& 12 and also reiied upon a "t in-t-he matter of Swt. .Savitha Supta v. ^epQrtedin.AIR 2003 KARNCMKA 426. (un.sel for the parties, I have perused the t|s. In this conneetion, suB-rule (1) of Order ^he defendant shall, within thirty days from on him, present a written; sl'a't'ement of his the defendant fails toifile the written (d ofthirtydays, he shdtl be allowed to file maybespecifiedbytheCoui-t',forreasons which shal! npt be later than ninety days dfimmons.' Therefore, plain reading of this j,per the main rule 1 the defenclant is under latement within 30-days frpm|the date of ^within the period :pf 30:days;l"iecan file jwn riglit; 1-lpwever,. ppovisp j^> above rule GRre]--4%/3So—i2/200§Jt3^BJ9^'^^own^^^'^ ele-fendait fculs fo ;fi la tMel wpitten XI-HG—78 •-T:' 'TS? 'SIFIT^PT, s.ni-H'Ko, I'stwi-aH'i 311^1 qn •feri^: •aqian^rwqN \ "s 3n^?T T5|aS ^) TOiiWdfCTan^f ^ statement vujthin 30 days/th^n he can be allowed to file the same on such other.day, as may be specifiefJ bythe Court,for reasdnsto be recorded in writing, therefore, after 30 request the Court for exten^ion of time explaining the reasons for not filing the written stflctement can allow further 60 ddys' after recording the reason: Therefore, even further 6Q satisfactory reasons fo.be Karnotaka 1-iigh Court in the the Court is not entitled tb for allowing the defendan-t-1< KarncEtaka High Court went •I of Order 8 Rule 9 of the :4 provisibn of Section 151 of days is notiapplicable on the jurisdiction of the Court' can does contain specific pFOvisi case, such Iprovisions should not be invoke9', as has be&tjl bf NaJnsiitgjh, v. Koonwarje« *wfi'i<i!-i ^iragf.'if .iysi' ^N^R ^'37fTO.3IlN: ;'1 '"'; days, the defendantis un<jer obligation to within 30 days and then and •t'hen the Court Ime t6 file written statement'and that too in writing showing satisfaction for delay. days frpm 30 days can be extended only on |jyen by the Coupt'. As per the decision of ^natter of Smt. Savitha Supto (Supro) that ^xtend the ti me beyond 90 dcys in any cose file written statement. In this decision the b the extent that even under The provisions ,P.C. furt'her' timecannot be granfed. Even lie^C.P.C. for extending the timeltieyond 90' ground that when thef'eisexpress prbvision^ of the statute for the pur|)ose of filing written'statement. 'Inherent beexercisedsubjectto.rulethatiftheCode ?ns which would meet the^ necessities of the be followed and.inher'ent jur'is<:iiction:sh<?uld leld by +he !-lon'b]e Apex eourSinjthe mafter| •epsrt-ed in AIR 1970 SC 997.; Similarviewi has.Deen'TOKen by •i-he AI1d b<id i-llgll Cout'l iiiFI hy iilul lu" ur^Dr . Handa :|r.S?' .-i^f-qi^lCl^, y? al -^ Agrawai (Supr'a) that time cahno^ provisions of Section 148 of the C.j time. Similarly ppwers under Orde^S Rule 9 andSection 151 of the C.P.C. cannot be exerclsed for extending|thetime beyond 90 dttysfofilewritten statement;there.fore,Idmofthfcopjnion that the Court cannot extend the time to filewritten statemen-ti Mithumal and others (Suprof) is held thctt 'in order to do complet . »i<iiffl<ili^imrif'?ft^t 1RiR?re • ^cffira be extended beyond 90;days and even '.C. cannot beavailed forextending the beyond 90 doYs, As far as the decision of tjie.Migh Court of AAJ'. ih the matter of ^oncer'ned, ih that case application, for extensioh of time dlong with writj-en statement was filed and the Court justice between the parties without allowing the case to be delayed 4nd in exceptiona] cases reasons to. be recorded; the statement can be l^aken on Becord subject to payment of cost.' In this case, so far no wri|'ten stori'ement hasfaeen filed nor any request in writing by filing an app filed; Admittedly, the petitioner lication for extension of time has been ^erein put her appearance .before the trial Cpurt pn7-5-2004 antlthere(jrfter 90 days' time expired but written statement has not been filed, The petitjoner that since first date t ®fore,no exceptiondl ttircumstance has been shown in this case; as sucfi the case luw is of no help to the petjtioner. Now; coming rt'o the argume^t qdvanced by leamed counsel for the te matter was.fixed forargyments on G(: PRJ-FS/35()-1i/;538^%%b" the.applicBrt-ion ynder Sectipn 24;^f^he Hindu ^arriage'Act ahduiso for ^@pc^ualion, theretore, Tjie -petitioner remainec) under ttiejii'npression i ir'.c I- an^IWftsi)%. '^T-sn^r ?fRN? <-. ^ST '<)l<tlS1'i<,,®?i1<1')S^fi<')h9^ t?T?i?i<ii> (ytyx^I) SWIiaf'RftiT 3^1 arqluments ^unlmons that the matter is.fixed for under- Section 24 of the l-1indu /l to ba filed lateron, but I do ricjt this argument is totttlly contpdi^ the C.P.C. becausa Order S Rtilel from the date of service of file written statement within further 6Q days for reasons to not efltifled to take the abovel arguments on the^ applicafion, statement. ; Now, coffling to other arg^ petitioner that provisions of proceeding under Hindu Marria^e Act envisages fha1-^ 'subject •(•o and to such" ru!es aa the. 1-li^h proceedings under this Act sh<^l] Code of Civil Procedure, t908.' Learned counsel fof th< word 'as far as may be' deni^tes strictty appilicahje in the .cases This |arG|umen1- of |eQtme<jl. ^>[iifet'!i1^'RTR^f "^f fST€t'^fsR^R ^ STOCT <^L^I ^ and the decision of the application ^drriage Act and the written statement is find any substance in this ar9ument and |y to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of 1 tof the C.P.G. specifically lays down that :the defendant is under obtigation-to 0, days and the Court is entitled to give be recorded. Therefore, ¥h© petitioner is defence that the matter vuds fixed for therefpre, she could not :-fi!e written bment advanced by learned counsel for the ;.P.C. are not str'ictly dpplicable in the Act, in thiseonnection Section 21 ofthe ?ha other provjsions contained iri this Act Courf may make in .this behalf, dli be regulated, as fdr as may be, by the l-1ibh petitioner' fur'ther' submitted that •t-he that. the proyisions pf .C'.P.C. we not liecl under the i-1indu Marriage Act; 1955. . cSunse! forfhepetifioner is a sp without GRPRJ—FS/356—12/2( :s- |for..the TecSonl thaf fhe wording of Section^ 21; that all XI-HC—78- sn^i'^iRt-ii* wa sntet »>wfi . V^ Barve '3^^l<lilct^,-'S1a14i:'i®;Rciray. tllWClT «»NI<»» ••^200^ gn^fFcRN?, C'i?ly('tcf) ^ETOR-ufea SiI^W <1_ ;'*i<<is'i*8'i Twwff ^i fstzt <fa«si< •^sifwsn^i v';r proceedingi.of the Act shall b^ regu|oted, as far as may be, by the Code of (SixiJ Pt'ocedure makes it cl^ar that the word 'os far as tnay be' has been used with fhe purpose t^iat proceedihgs under the Mindu Mwrmge Act, 1955 areto be regulated andyntiTprpvidedothervuise. Therefore, for the reas as per the Code of Civil Procedure unless ons mentioned above,inD'Ie,presentcase the petitjoner has not filed any wr-itten stcEtement withiri BO days ahd eyen the permission vuas also not soujght to file written statei'nen'f,Cam of the opinion that the trial Court' has not committed any ffllegality and ir'regularity in passing the impi) dismissed and it is accordingtyv gned order. Thispetrtipn isliable to he ismissecl. No costs.i—:—- Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge 11<pl ffll w a \^ I