(1982)1982 November 20 [HADJIANASTASSIOU, A. Loizoi' A N D DEMETRIADES, JJ.] ANDREAS STYLIANIDES, Appellant-Defendant\ v. EKATERINI CHARLY SKOT TRADING UNDER THE BUSINESS NAME FLAIR FASHION AND ANOTHER, Respondents-Planitiffs. (Civil Appeal No. 6076). Civil Procedure—Practice—Writ of summons—Not served within 12 months—Renewal of writ and enlargement of timefor its service may be pursued in the same application—Civil Procedure Rules, Order 4 and Order 57, rule 2. The following two issuesarosefor consideration in this appeal: ^ (
- a)Whether the trial Judge exercised properly his discretion to enlarge the time for the service of the writ after the expiration of the period of 12 months set down by Order 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. (
- b)Whether the application for enlargement should be • made separately from the application for renewal itself. .« Held, that the timeprovisions ofOrder 4ofthe Civil Procedure Rules are amenable to extension under Order 57,r.2; that there is no reason in principle why two remedial proceedings such as ,c the enlargement of time and renewal should not be pursued in the same application; that, further, nothing set before this Court warrants its interference with the exercise of the discretion of the trial Court though had discretion vested in it in the first place, it might require more stringent standard before excusing ^n the delay of the respondentsAppeal dismissed, Cases referred to: Nigerian Produce v. Sonora Shipping
(1979)1 C.L.R.
- 786 1 C.L.R. Stylifloides v. Flair Fashion Appeal. Appeal bydefendant 1against theorder ofthe District Court of Nicosia (G. Nicolaou, D J . ) dated the 27th February, 1980, (Action No. 5401/77) enlarging the time for the service of the 5 writ of summons after the expiration of the 12months' period set downintheCivil Procedure Rulesforeffecting service onthe defendant. L. Papaphilippou, for the appellant. E. Efstathiou, for the respondent. 10 Cur. adv. vult. HADJIANASTASSIOU J. read the following judgment of the Court. Wearerequired inthis appeal toreviewthedecisionof the trial Judge enlarging time for theservice ofthe writ after the expiration of 12months, the period set down bythe CivilPro15 cedure Rules for effecting service upon the defendant: (see Order 4). Before the trial Court it was argued that the Judge hasno discretion on the matter and that the provisions of Order57, r. 2 are inapplicable and cannot be relied upon to extend re20 trospectively theperiod within which thewrit oughttobeserved. ThetrialJudge decided otherwise andapplyinghis mindtothe facts ofthe casegranted enlargement oftimeandextended inthe same proceedings the period within which would be effected. Before us it wa:>argued while conceding the trial Judge had 25 discretion to enlarge the time, that the discretion was wrongly exercised and that in any event the application for enlargement should be made separately from the application for renewal itself. It is well settled that the time provisions of Order 4 of the 30 Civil Procedure Rules are amenable to extention under Order 57,r.
- 35 The Case Law on the subject is reviewed indetail inNigerian Produce v. Sonora Shipping
(1979)1C.L.R. p. 395. (See also the Annual Practice 1958 p. 91 on the interpretation of the English provisions corresponding toourOrder 4,notably R.S.C. Order 8, r. 1 - the oldrules). 787 HadUaoastassioa J. Stylianides v. Flair Fashion
(1982)We see no reason in principle why two remedial proceedings such as the enlargement of time and renewal should not be pursued inthe sameapplication. Further nothing setbefore us warrants our interference with the exercise of the discretion of thetrial Court though had discretion vested in us in the first 5 place,wemight requiremorestringent standard before excusing the delay of the respondents. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed withcosts. 788