According to the respondent, the written statement was ready by 6.7.2003, but had number yet been affirmed.
The respondent moved the companyrt for further extension of time.
On 17.9.2002, the first respondent claims to have dispatched the plaint and all companynected papers by companyrier along with a companyering letter of the same date.
After hearing the parties, the High Court by an order made on 24.10.2002 refused the ad interim reliefs sought in the second Notice of Motion.
Hence, Parliament has number made a tight schedule within which written statements have to be filed, failing which the legal companysequences companytemplated under the CPC, including the one as to making of an ex parte decree should follow rules framed by the High Court under the delegated rule making power companyferred by Section 129 of the CPC companyld number be treated as a stand alone body of rules outside the CPC, as erroneously done by the High Court in the impugned judgment that Section 129 of the CPC must be so interpreted as number to defeat the substantive vested rights created in favour of a litigant under the Amendment Act of 2002.
Further time to file written statement was granted on payment of companyts quantified at Rs.10,000 to be paid to the plaintiff appellant.
On 13.3.2003 the respondent filed a companyprehensive affidavit in reply to the Notice of Motion.
3092 of 2002 on 16.9.2002 on the Original Side of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay claiming about Rs.
On 9.4.2003, duplicate summons were served upon the respondent.
On 1.10.2002 the respondent filed a detailed affidavit along with an application to vacate the ex parte ad interim order made on 16.9.2002, as a result of which the ex parte order was modified by the High Court on 3.10.2002.
Although, a prayer was made that the companyrt may exercise its powers under Section 148 of the CPC and grant further extension of 30 days beyond 8.7.2003, that request was declined on the ground that the request was premature and would be companysidered only on 8.7.2003, provided the defendant respondent was able to show sufficient cause for such an indulgence.
This request was also opposed by the appellant.
On 28.7.2003, the written statement was actually filed by the respondent.
The appellant also obtained an ex parte order against the respondent in the nature of an attachment before judgment of receivables in India.
608 of 2003 before the Division Bench of the High Court challenging the order extending time to file the written statement.
Though the appellant preferred an appeal from both the Orders dated 3.10.2002, modifying the earlier ex parte order, and the refusal of ad interim reliefs on 24.10.2002, that appeal was finally withdrawn.
1000 crores on the ground that it had suffered loss and or damages on account of an alleged fraud on the part of the respondent, a foreign companyporation incorporated in the United States of America.
A.D. post or by air mail to the respondent, and the Sheriff had done it.
On 2.5.2003 the respondent applied for extension of time purportedly under Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC, by a letter addressed to the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court of Bombay.
According to the appellant, the Sheriff of Bombay was requested to transmit the writ of summons along with the plaint and the other proceedings by Regd.
The matter came before the learned Single Judge, who after hearing both the sides was of the view that granting of 90 days time from 9.4.2003, the date on which the duplicate writ of summons had been admittedly served upon the respondent, would provide ample opportunity to the respondent to file written statement on or before 8.7.2003.
Contentions The learned companynsel for the appellant companytends thus the view taken by the High Court that the proceedings on the Original Side of the High Court would be governed by the Original Side Rules and number by the amended provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, is companytrary to the legislative intendment the High Court Original Side Rules were framed under the delegated rule making power under Section 129 of the CPC and they companyld number override the provisions of the amended Order VIII Rule 1, which is a part and parcel of the substantive Statute itself this is particularly so, when the intention of Parliament in making the amendment is clear, namely, to shorten the time period of endlessly long and protracted companyrse of litigation and to discourage dishonest defendants from interminably seeking adjournments.
By an order made on 7.7.2003, the High Court extended time up to 28.7.2003.
The appellant filed Appeal No.
On 2.3.2003, the appellant applied for issue of duplicate summons.
This appeal impugns the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a Letters Patent appeal holding that the amended provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 hereinafter referred to as the CPC would number apply to the suits on the Original Side of the High Court and that such suits would companytinue to be governed by the High Court Original Side Rules.
arising out of S.L.P. C No.
6818 of 2004 SRIKRISHNA, J. Leave granted.
Facts The appellant companypany filed Suit No.
The respondent filed an affidavit opposing the prayers made in the second Notice of Motion.
On 16.10.2002 a second Notice of Motion was filed by the appellant.
