Devendra Pratap Singh, J. - (1.) NONE appears for the petitioner even in the second call. Heard learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner holds a telephone connection granted by the respondents and when he failed to pay three continuous bills amounting to Rs. 23,835/ -, the plaintiff -respondent filed a Money Suit No. 706 of 2003 for recovery of the amount together with interest and expenses. Summons were issued by ordinary process as well as by registered post and 16.12.2003 was fixed for filing of the written statement. However, the defendant did not file his written statement. Thus, the Trial Court vide order dated 29.5.2004 directed the suit to proceed ex parte against the petitioner and fixed 31.5.2004 for ex - parte hearing. On 31.5.2004 the petitioner filed an application for recalling of the ex -parte order dated 29.5.2004 and further sought time for filing written statement. By the impugned order dated 31.5.2004 the Trial Court partly allowed the application but rejected the application for extension time for filing the written statement in view of Order 8, Rule 1, C.P.C. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a revision which has also been rejected vide order dated 30.11.2004. Both these orders are under challenge in this petition.
(2.) THE Revisional Court after considering the amended provisions of Order 8, Rule 1, C.P.C. found that the Courts did not have any power to accept a written statement beyond the period of 90 days from the date of service of summons. Both the Courts have also found that the service was effected on the petitioners on 23.11.2003 by personal service and on 20.11.2003 by registered post. Thus, as the written statement was not filed within 90 days thereafter, in view of the amended provision and the decisions of this Court in the case of Dr. Nanda Agarwal v. Matri Mandir, Varanasi : 2004 (2) ARC 598, has held that no time for filing the written statement could be allowed. However, it has held that the petitioner can take part in the proceedings but the suit has to be decided in the absence of written statement. After a careful perusal of the judgments and the record and after going through the judgment of this Court as noted in the impugned order, I do not find that there is any error much less an error apparent on the face of record. Thus, I do not find that this is a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.;