Time Limit For Filing Of Written Statement Under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC Is Not Mandatory: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated the time limit for filing of the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure is not mandatory (if it is not a commercial suit).In this case, a suit for injunction was filed by the plaintiff. The High Court upheld the Trial court order refusing to condone the delay of 193 days in filing of the written statement on the ground that there was "no plausible explanation and coherent reason" explaining the delay in filing the written statement.In appeal filed by the defendant, the Apex Court noted that the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff is not the one which is governed by the Commercial Court Act, 2015."Therefore, the time limit for filing of the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory in view of the judgment of this Court reported as 'Kailash V. Nankhu & Ors.' reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we find that the delay in filing of the written statement could very well be compensated with costs but denying the benefit of filing of the written statement is unreasonable.", the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian said.Allowing the appeal, the bench directed the Trial Court to expedite the decision of the suit keeping in view the old age of the plaintiff.Time Limit For Filing Written Statement: Law and PrecedentsOrder VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.In Kailash Vs. Nanhku, it was held thus:The purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. The provision spells out a disability on the defendant. It does not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time. Though, the language of the proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII of the CPC is couched in negative form, it does not specify any penal consequences flowing from the non- compliance. The provision being in the domain of the Procedural Law, it has to be held directory and not mandatory. The power of the Court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC is not completely taken away.Though Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC is a part of Procedural Law and hence directory, keeping in view the need for expeditious trial of civil causes which persuaded the Parliament to enact the provision in its present form, it is held that ordinarily the time schedule contained in the provision is to be followed as a rule and departure therefrom would be by way of exception. A prayer for extension of time made by the defendant shall not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for asking, more so when the period of 90 days has expired. Extension of time may be allowed by way of an exception, for reasons to be assigned by the defendant and also be placed on record in writing, howsoever briefly, by the Court on its being satisfied. Extension of time may be allowed if it was needed to be given for the circumstances which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. Costs may be imposed and affidavit or documents in support of the grounds pleaded by the defendant for extension of time may be demanded, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case.In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India, it was observed that there is no restriction in Order VIII Rule 10 that after expiry of ninety days, further time cannot be granted. "The Court has wide power to 'make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit'. Clearly, therefore, the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 providing for upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory. Having said so, we wish to make it clear that the order extending time to file written statement cannot be made in routine. The time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. While extending time, it has to be borne in mind that the legislature has fixed the upper time limit of 90 days. The discretion of the Court to extend the time shall not be so frequently and routinely exercised so as to nullify the period fixed by Order VIII Rule 1."In Commercial CourtsThe Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, amended this provision by adding the following proviso to Rule 1: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he...

Time Limit For Filing Of Written Statement Under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC Is Not Mandatory: Supreme Court

Ashok KM

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Time Limit For Filing Of Written Statement Under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC Is Not Mandatory: Supreme Court

Ashok KM

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers