S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Petitioner is defendant-tenant in S.C.C. Suit No. 11 of 2004, Shrimati Lata Varseneya v. Shrimati Kunti Devi, pending before J.S.C.C./Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Etah. Written statement was not filed within 90 days from date of service of summons. Trial Court by order dated 9th May, 2005 refused to grant any further time to file written statement as in its view it had no jurisdiction to do so. Against the said order, S.C.C. Revision No. 11 of 2005 was filed. District Judge, Etah through judgment and order dated 30th July, 2005 has dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition.
(2.) As far as power of the Court to permit filing of written statement after 90 days from the date of service of summons is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case reported in Kailash v. Nanku, 2005 (1) ARC 861, has held that inspite of amendment in Order VIII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has got power to take on record written statement after expiry of aforesaid period of 90 days. Revisional Court thoroughly considered the said authority of the Supreme Court and quoted various paragraphs of the same. However, on merits the Revisional Court found that no sufficient ground had been made out for condoning the delay in filing the written statement.
(3.) In my opinion, the first error which the Revisional Court committed was that instead of remanding that matter to the Trial Court after reversing the view of the Trial Court on the question of jurisdiction. Revisional Court itself proceeded to decide regarding existence or non-existence of valid ground to permit the defendant to file Written Statement after expiry of 90 days from the date of service of summons. Secondly, the suit is not very old and only two adjournments had been sought for filing written statements, hence it could not be said that defendant did not deserve opportunity to file written statement.;