AIR 2010 GAUHATI 155 ::2010 AIHC NOC 337 ::(2010) 1 ACC 381 ::(2010) 95 AllIndCas 602 (GAU) ::2010 (95) AllIndCas 602 ::(2011) 2 ACJ 1248 ::(2010) 2 TAC 451 ::(2010) 1 Gau LR 90 ::(2012) 1 Gau LR 285 ::2010 (4) GauLT 848 ::(2009) 4 Gau LT 947

Gauhati High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): Iqbal Ahmed Ansari , J

(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.8 R.1 Proviso— Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , S.5— Delay in filing written statement - Condonation of delay - Application for written statement filed beyond period of 90 days - Court does have power u/O.8, R.1 to extend statutory period, notwithstanding fact statutory period for filing written statement is 90 days - Since prescribed period of 90 days is not mandatory - Court, if satisfied with reasons assigned by defendant - Can extend period for filing written statement - Application u/S.5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay - Not necessary. The proviso to Rule 1 of Order 8 shows that Court does have power to extend period of 90 days, prescribed for filing of written statement, only limitation being that such period cannot be more than 90 days. When, thus, power to grant extension of time to file written statement is already vested in Court, question is as to whether prescribed limit of 90 days is mandatory or directory. Since prescribed period of 90 days is not mandatory a Court, when satisfied with reasons assigned by a defendant that defendant could not, for sufficient cause, file his written statement within prescribed period of 90 days, may allow further time to file written statement. Consequently, because of fact that period of 90 days has expired, Court does not lose its power to grant extension of time for filin....