No Straitjacket Formula For Condoning Delay In Written Statement In Non-Commercial Suits: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld a trial court's decision to condone the delay in filing a written statement in a non-commercial civil suit, observing that the timeline under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory, and that there can be no straitjacket formula for deciding whether a delayed written statement should be accepted.The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal held that...
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld a trial court's decision to condone the delay in filing a written statement in a non-commercial civil suit, observing that the timeline under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory, and that there can be no straitjacket formula for deciding whether a delayed written statement should be accepted.
The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal held that although a party seeking to file a written statement beyond the statutory timeline must provide sufficient reasons or a justified explanation, such reasons have to be assessed on the facts and circumstances of each case, rather than through a rigid or inflexible approach.
For context, the Court was hearing a challenge against the order of the trial court in which delay in filing written statement by one of the defendants was condoned by the court and the written statement was allowed to be filed.
The petitioner had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in June 2021, in which 10 defendants were impleaded and service of summons to all the defendants was recorded by the court in June 2021. One of the defendants submitted the written statement in April 2026, along with an application seeking condonation of delay, which was admitted. Hence the petition.
It was argued that no sufficient reason was assigned by the defendant for filing the written statement beyond the statutory timeline provided under Order 8, Rule 1, CPC. Hence, trial court could not have condoned the delay.
After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Kailash v Nankhu and Ors. which held that fixing time schedule under Order 8 Rule 1 was directory and not mandatory. The purpose for such timeline was only to expedite the hearing, not to scuttle it.
Furthe reference was made to the case of Atcom Technologies Ltd. Vs. Y.A. Chunawala and Company and Ors. which held that the provision was a procedural law and not a substantial one, hence power of the court to accept the written statement beyond the timeline was not taken away.
After hearing the contentions, the Court observed,
“It is true that in the non-commercial dispute, sufficient reason or justified explanation must be assigned by the parties, for seeking permission to submit written statement on record, after expiry of statutory time schedule as envisaged under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, nevertheless there cannot be any straitjacket formula nor specific categories of reasons can be classified, because reasons may differ in case to case, hence, the explanation or reasons can be considered on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case, subject to satisfaction of the Court as to when permit or deny by the Court, to take written statement on record, if submitted after expiry of the time schedule.”
The Court further stated that the while considering the reasons for delay, the Court should consider the aim and objective of legislature for prescribing the time schedule to submit written statement.
In the present case, the Court observed that since no substantial prejudice was caused to the petitioner by allowing written statement of the defendant, and the delay in the proceeding was not attributable to him, the reasons for condoning his delay should not be considered in a rigid manner but in a flexibly.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.