1 //fair//

IN THE COURT OF X ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT AT

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 12th day of June, 2018.

Present:- Sri G. Raja Gopal, B.Sc. B.L.,

X Additional Chief Judge.

I.A. No. 208 of 2017

in
O.S. No. 899 of 2014

Between:

M/s. PSA Nitrogen Limited

A public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956,
office at D-9/6, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi rep by its
Managing Director & another.
... Petitioner-Defendant No.1.

And

Mylan Laboratories Ltd

A public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956,
having its registered office at Plot No. 564/A/22, Road No. 92, Jubilee
Hillsd, Hyderabad rep by its AGM (Legal) Mr. B. Sohan S/o B. Mohan Rao.

... Respondent-Plaintiff.

The present I.A. came up before me for final hearing in the

presence of Sri A. Kranthi Ramana, advocate for the Petitioner-
Defendant No.1 and of Ms.Shireen Sethna Baria, advocate for the
Respondent-Plaintiff and having stood over for consideration to this day
the court made the follolwing:-

ORDER

Perused the petition, counter and other records. This application is

filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 Under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC with a

prayer to setaside the exparte order dt. 13-09-2016.

2. The respondent-plaintiff filed counter and vehemently opposed

the petition contending that the present petition is devoid of merits as

the petitioner miserably failed to demonstrate the circumstances and

reasons which entitles the petitioner to seek indulgence of this court. It

2 //fair//

is contended that the defendant No.1 entered appearance on 27-04-

2016, however, the petitioner-defendant No.1 failed to file written

statement within statutory period of 90 days. Therefore, the respondent-

plaintiff prayed to dismiss the present petition with costs.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Now the point for consideration in this application is whether the

petitioner has shown any good cause for his previous non-
appearance and to setaside the exparte order dt. 13-09-2016?

Point:-

5. The above suit is filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the

petitioner-defendant No.1 and another for recovery of money. The

record reveals that the petitioner-defendant No.1 entered appearance

before this court on 27-04-2016. As per the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1

CPC the petitioner-defendant No.1 has to file written statement within

30 days or 90 days as extended by the court. But the petitioner-

defendant No.1 failed to file written statement with in the said statutory

period. Moreover, the accompanying affidavit of the petitioner-

defendant No.1 did not disclose any cause or ground for non-filing of the

written statement or for non-appearance. The petitioner-defendant No.1

simply stated to setaside the order passed on 13-09-2016 without

showing any cause.

6. In Y. Venkataramana vs. Yellaboina Venkatamma @ Y. Muni

Venkataswamy 2018 (3) ALT 586 wherein the Hon’ble High Court of

Hyderabad held that the provisions in Order 8 Rule 1 CPC providing that

the higher limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory, but

however added that the order extending time to file written statement

cannot be made in a routine manner, and that time to be extended only in

3 //fair//

exceptional hard cases. Apart from that the petitioner has not filed any

separate application Under Order 8 Rule 1 R/w Rule 10 of CPC seeking

leave of the court to file written statement as per the decision in Sami

Ateeq Ahmed vs. Mohammed Rafiq Khan and Others 2016(6) ALD 140.

Considering the material available on record, this court has no hesitation

to hold that the petitioner has not shown any good cause or ground for

his non-appearance and non filing of written statement and in view of the

above said decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Hyderabad, I do not

find any merit in the present application and the same is devoid of merits.

Accordingly the point is answered.

As a result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 12 th day of June, 2018.

X ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
Nil
DOCUMENTS MARKED
Nil

X ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.