ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 73 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda, against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,76,760/-. Summons in the suit are said to have been served on the respondent on 24-9-2002. The respondent did not choose to file written statement even after the expiry of the time stipulated under Rule 1 of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) as amended by Act 22 of 2002 of the Parliament. He was set ex parte on 14-2-2003.
2. The respondent filed I.A. No. 138 of 2003 under Order 9, Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the Order dated 14-2-2003 and to permit him to file written statement. The LA, was allowed and the written statement was received on the same day. The petitioner challenges the order in I.A. No. 138 of 2003.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the respondent failed to submit his written statement within the stipulated time under Rule 1 of Order 8 of the Code, it was not competent for the Court to receive the same that too without recording reasons. He further contends that the Trial Court did not assign any reasons for setting aside the order dated 21 -2-2003.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that it was within the discretion of the Court to receive the written statement even after the expiry of the time stipulated under Rule 1 of Order 8 of the Code. He places reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported in Nachipetti Ramaswamy v. P. Buchi Reddy, .
5. This revision is directed against the order dated 21-2-2003 setting aside the ex parte order dated 14-2-2003 and receiving the written statement. Thereby the order has two components.
6. Where ever an order is passed by a Court setting one of the parties ex parte, corresponding rights accrue to the other party. Such orders can be set aside only on being satisfied with the reasons furnished by the party which was set ex parte. Any order passed without furnishing reasons cannot be said to be the result of a proper adjudication.
7. So far as the submission of written statement is concerned, the Parliament brought about a substantial amendment to Order 8. Rule 1 of Order 8 of the Code as amended, mandates that the written statement shall be submitted within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of summons. The Court is granted power to extend the time by another 60 days, for reasons to be recorded. Extension of time for receiving written statement after 30 days, but before expiry of 90 days is not a matter of course and the Court is under obligation to record reasons. In the context of these requirements, it needs to be seen as to whether the Trial Court had complied with the same. The entire order reads as under:
“I.A. No. 138 of 2003 is allowed. Ex parte orders are set aside. W.S. filed. For Issues call on 7-3-2003.”
8. This hardly constitutes compliance with the requirements of law be it for setting aside an ex parte order, or for receiving written statement beyond the time stipulated under Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code. The Trial Court was under the obligation to furnish separate reasons for setting, aside the ex parte order on the one hand and for receiving the written statement after the stipulated time on the other. It has not even chosen to give an opportunity to the petitioner herein to file its counter-affidavit. Even in the absence of a counter-affidavit, recording of reasons is a requirement under the Code under Order 8 Rule 1. Viewed from any angle, the Order under revision cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law.