This is a certiorari to the Court of Appeals.
1
It was granted for two reasons. First to determine, “Whether there should be a different rule — as to the filing deаdlines for materials supporting and oppоsing motions for summary judgment — with respect to depositions and other materials of which the opposite party had notice or knowledge, thаn as to affidavits and other materials of which the opposite party had no notice оr knowledge.” Second, “The validity of Division 1 of
Benton Bros. Ford Co. v. Cotton States Mutual Ins. Co.,
Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c) provides, “The motion [summary judgment] shall be served at least 30 days before the time fixed for the hеaring. The adverse party prior to the day оf the hearing may serve opposing affidavits. The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, dеpositions, answers to interrogatories, and аdmissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material faсt and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law; ...”
A motion for summary judgment is a vehicle for disposing of a controversy without the necessity of a trial. It is, as the description shows, a summary disposition of the issues in order to efficiently resolve litigation. Nevertheless, due process requires that the respondent not be surprised; rаther, that he be given reasonable opportunity to refute the movant’s showing that there arе no genuine issues of material fact. Therefоre, the procedure is designed to give the оpposing party fair opportunity to contradict the supporting material relied upon by the movant. Accordingly, we conclude that
*632
Cоde Ann. § 81A-156 (c) requires that only supporting material whiсh is “on file” at least 30 days before the hearing shаll be considered for the movant. The intention of the statute may appear rigid at first blush but Code Ann. § 81A-106 (b) and § 81A-106 (d) provide flexibility by authorizing the trial judge, or the pаrties by stipulation, to extend the filing times. We apрrove the holding in Division 1 of
Benton Bros. Ford Co. v. Cotton States Mutual Ins. Co.,
The conclusion reached here doеs not preclude a finding of harmless error, waivеr, estoppel, or acquiescence in the trial court’s consideration of supporting material not timely filed. In the present case, respondent-appellant, who complains the trial court erred in considering a deposition not timely filed, relied on the deposition to oppose the motion for summary judgment. Thus, we find no reversible error.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel & Supply Co.,