Case Note & Summary
The present Writ Petition was filed by the Original Defendants (Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and Citi Corp. Finance India Ltd.) challenging the judgment and order dated 18.06.2008 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay, which refused to condone the delay of 31 months and 16 days in filing the Written Statement. The suit was filed by the Plaintiff (Borrower) and after service of Writ of Summons on the Defendants on 23.12.2004 and 28.12.2004 respectively, the Defendants were required to file their written statement by 17.01.2005. Although the written statement was affirmed on 17.01.2005, it could not be tendered in court because a Notice of Motion (Interim Application) filed by the Plaintiff was pending for hearing and disposal. The Notice of Motion was ultimately disposed of on 02.11.2007. Immediately thereafter, the Defendants attempted to tender the written statement, but the court refused to accept it due to objection by the Plaintiff that the time limit of 30 days had expired. Consequently, the Defendants filed a Notice of Motion to condone the delay. The City Civil Court rejected the application without considering the correct position of law. The Petitioners argued that the delay was not intentional and that the court should adopt a liberal approach. The Respondent No. 2 (Plaintiff) did not appear. The High Court held that the City Civil Court erred in rejecting the application and that the delay should be condoned to advance substantial justice. The impugned order was set aside, the delay was condoned, and the written statement was taken on record subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the Plaintiff within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Filing of Written Statement - Order VIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court considered whether the delay of 31 months and 16 days in filing the written statement should be condoned. The Petitioners (Original Defendants) contended that the delay was due to the pendency of an interim application (Notice of Motion) and the court's practice of not accepting written statements during such pendency. The City Civil Court rejected the application without considering the correct position of law. Held that courts should adopt a liberal approach in condoning delay to advance substantial justice rather than defeat it on technicalities. The impugned order was set aside and the delay was condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the Plaintiff (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the City Civil Court erred in refusing to condone the delay of 31 months and 16 days in filing the written statement, and whether the impugned order warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the impugned order dated 18.06.2008, condoned the delay of 31 months and 16 days, and directed that the Written Statement be taken on record subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the Plaintiff within four weeks.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- liberal approach
- substantial justice
- technicalities
- Order VIII Rule 1 CPC
- Section 5 Limitation Act
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (01) 229
WRIT PETITION NO. 6989 OF 2008
Mr. S.P. Bharti for Petitioners, Mr. Sachin H. Kankal, AGP for Respondent No.1
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and Citi Corp. Finance India Ltd.
The State of Maharashtra and Major Singh Najar Singh
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the rejection of a delay condonation application in a civil suit.
Remedy Sought
The Petitioners (Original Defendants) sought to set aside the order dated 18.06.2008 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay, refusing to condone the delay of 31 months and 16 days in filing the Written Statement, and to allow the Written Statement to be taken on record.
Filing Reason
The Petitioners were unable to file the Written Statement within the prescribed time due to the pendency of an interim application (Notice of Motion) and the court's practice of not accepting written statements during such pendency.
Previous Decisions
The City Civil Court, Bombay, by order dated 18.06.2008, dismissed the delay condonation application filed by the Defendants.
Issues
Whether the City Civil Court erred in refusing to condone the delay of 31 months and 16 days in filing the written statement.
Whether the impugned order warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Submissions/Arguments
The Petitioners argued that the delay was not intentional and was caused by the pendency of the Notice of Motion and the court's practice of not accepting written statements during such pendency.
The Petitioners contended that the City Civil Court did not consider the correct position of law and that courts should adopt a liberal approach in condoning delay to advance substantial justice.
Ratio Decidendi
Courts should adopt a liberal approach in condoning delay in filing written statements to advance substantial justice rather than defeat it on technicalities. The delay was not intentional and was caused by the pendency of an interim application and court practice.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay heard both the sides and on the basis of argument advanced by both the sides dismissed the delay condonation Application by order dated 18.06.2008.
Hence, the impugned order should be quashed and set aside, in the interest of justice.
Procedural History
The suit was filed by the Plaintiff (Borrower) in the City Civil Court, Bombay. Writ of Summons was served on Defendant No.1 on 23.12.2004 and Defendant No.2 on 28.12.2004. The Defendants were required to file written statement by 17.01.2005. The written statement was affirmed on 17.01.2005 but could not be tendered due to pendency of Notice of Motion No. 3909 of 2007. The Notice of Motion was disposed of on 02.11.2007. The Defendants then attempted to file the written statement but the court refused to accept it. The Defendants filed a Notice of Motion to condone the delay. The City Civil Court dismissed the delay condonation application on 18.06.2008. The Defendants filed the present Writ Petition on 08.07.2008. Rule was issued. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 27.01.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VIII Rule 1
