Karnataka High Court Upholds State's 120-Day Limit For Written Statements But Preserves Judicial Discretion In 'Exceptional' Cases

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the state's amendment prescribing a 120-day outer limit for filing written statements. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 274]However, the single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum has 'read down' the provision to ensure that civil courts retain a 'narrow and exceptional' discretion to accept written statements beyond the 120 days in cases where denial could lead to grave 'miscarriage of justice'.While reading down the provision to avoid inconsistency with the other portions of CPC, the court tested the amendment on the touchstone of Article 14 and notes as below”“…Tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution, this Court is of the considered opinion that the legislative objective of prescribing an outer limit of 120 days for filing the written statement is, in itself, neither arbitrary nor constitutionally infirm... The constitutional infirmity, however, lies not in the prescription of the time limit, but in the incorporation of the expressions that, upon the expiry of one hundred and twenty days, 'the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement' and 'the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record', if those expressions are construed as creating an absolute and inflexible embargo, wholly excluding judicial discretion…”, the court laid down the law.The court reasoned that the amendment challenged, in its true interpretation, is partial. While it introduced a rigid proviso through the amendment, it consciously left untouched Order VIII Rule 10, which allows the court to 'make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit', and Section 151 preserving the court's inherent powers. Relying on the same, the court opined that a 'literal' interpretation of the120 days forfeiture clause [amendment challenged] would render the other provisions otiose and create inconsistency in CPC.“…The Legislature, by merely adding a proviso while consciously leaving untouched Order VIII Rule 10, Section 151, has itself furnished a compelling reason for adopting the doctrine of reading down. Such an interpretation alone preserves the internal coherence of the Code, gives meaningful operation to every provision enacted by Parliament, respects the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association(supra)…”, the court noted in the order.For context, Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005) had held that the time limit for filing a written statement is directory and that courts retain discretion to extend it in exceptional cases.For further context, the pleas were filed challenging the amended provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, brought forth by the state-specific Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024. The petitioners included Senior Advocate and Karnataka State Bar Council member Basavaraj S. and another litigant named Johar Abbas.Section 4 of the Karnataka Amendment bars a defendant from filing a written statement after the lapse of 120 days from the date of service of summons. The new proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC explicitly prevents the defendant from filing the written statement after 120 days, irrespective of any extenuating circumstances.Earlier, the 120-day cap for filing a written statement was only strictly observed in commercial disputes.The court, in its order, has also taken into account the practical realities faced by litigants and the ground reality in rural Karnataka.“…Despite considerable digitisation of land records, a large volume of historical revenue records continues to remain in physical custody of revenue authorities. Survey records, old grant files, Tippani extracts and village maps are not always readily accessible. Litigants are frequently required to make repeated visits to Taluk Offices, Survey Departments and Village Accountant offices to obtain certified copies. Administrative delays in securing such documents are neither uncommon nor attributable to the negligence of litigants….”, the court points out in its order.The singled judge bench also pointed out that in some instances, especially with regard to certain class of defendants, it might not be literally feasible to file written statement within the prescribed period.“…In suits instituted against a minor or a person of unsound mind, the written statement cannot be filed unless a guardian ad litem is appointed by the Court and such guardian accepts the appointment. The process of appointment, issuance of notice to the proposed guardian, acceptance of guardianship, and obtaining necessary instructions inevitably consumes time, which is often beyond the control of the defendant…”, the court said further.The court also opined that such rigours won't be applicable with regard to partition suits and coparcenary rights:“…The procedural rigour introduced by the Amendment Act cannot be applied in a manner that defeats substantive rights, particularly in suits for partition...

Karnataka High Court Upholds State's 120-Day Limit For Written Statements But Preserves Judicial Discretion In 'Exceptional' Cases

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

Karnataka High Court Upholds State's 120-Day Limit For Written Statements But Preserves Judicial Discretion In 'Exceptional' Cases

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers