Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, a defendant in a civil suit, challenged the Trial Court's order dated 11.12.2023 rejecting his application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The suit summons were served on 18.08.2022, and the written statement was due within 30 days (by 17.09.2022), extendable up to 90 days. The defendant appeared and obtained an extension but instead of filing the written statement, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on 05.11.2022. That application was rejected on 09.02.2023. Thereafter, on 03.03.2023, the defendant filed an application for condonation of delay along with the written statement, claiming that the period from 03.11.2022 to 09.02.2023 (pendency of the Order VII Rule 11 application) should be excluded, resulting in only 14 days' delay. The Trial Court rejected the application, holding that the reasons were insufficient. The High Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, upheld the Trial Court's order. It held that the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for exclusion of time on account of filing a miscellaneous application. The provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 are directory, but the court's discretion to condone delay requires sufficient cause. Ignorance of law or wrong legal advice, without an affidavit from the advocate, is not sufficient. The impugned order was well-reasoned and did not suffer from any illegality. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Order VIII Rule 1 CPC - Filing of Written Statement - The provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 are directory, not mandatory, but the court's discretion to condone delay must be exercised on sufficient reasons disclosed. Filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 does not automatically extend or exclude the period for filing the written statement. (Paras 12-15) B) Civil Procedure - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Effect on Written Statement - The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not provide that on filing a miscellaneous application, the time to file the written statement is extended or excluded. The defendant cannot claim exclusion of the period during which such application was pending. (Paras 11-15) C) Civil Procedure - Sufficient Cause - Condonation of Delay - Ignorance of law or wrong legal advice, without supporting affidavit from the advocate, is not sufficient ground to condone delay in filing the written statement. The defendant must place on record the advocate's affidavit to justify such reason. (Para 16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement, and whether the period during which an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was pending can be excluded for computing the time to file the written statement.
Final Decision
The petition was dismissed. The impugned order of the Trial Court dated 11.12.2023 was upheld. No costs. Rule discharged.
Law Points
- Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory but not mandatory
- filing of miscellaneous application does not extend or exclude time for written statement
- sufficient reasons required for condonation of delay
- ignorance of law or wrong legal advice not sufficient ground
