Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Kusuma Kumari, represented by her General Power of Attorney holder, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the XXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 1234/2023. The suit was filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) for specific performance of a contract. The petitioner (defendant) sought to file her written statement beyond the period of 90 days prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The trial court rejected the application, holding that the right to file written statement stood extinguished after the expiry of 90 days. The petitioner contended that Order 8 Rule 1 is directory and not mandatory, and that the court has discretion to accept the written statement on payment of costs. The respondents opposed, arguing that the delay was inordinate and that no sufficient cause was shown. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that Order 8 Rule 1 is directory and the court has discretion to condone the delay if no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff. The court noted that the suit was at an early stage and no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was permitted to file the written statement within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondents. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Condonation of Delay - Order 8 Rule 1 CPC - The trial court rejected the defendant's application to file written statement beyond 90 days, holding that the right to file written statement stood extinguished. The High Court held that Order 8 Rule 1 is directory and not mandatory, and the court has discretion to accept written statement even after expiry of 90 days on payment of costs, provided no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff. The impugned order was set aside and the defendant was permitted to file written statement on payment of costs of Rs. 5,000. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct an error of law committed by the trial court in rejecting the application to file written statement. The court held that such interference is warranted when the impugned order results in failure of justice. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application to file written statement beyond the period of 90 days under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the High Court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the XXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to file the written statement within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondents.
Law Points
- Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory
- not mandatory
- delay in filing written statement can be condoned on payment of costs
- right to file written statement is not extinguished upon expiry of 90 days
- court has discretion to accept written statement beyond limitation if no prejudice is caused
- Article 227 of Constitution of India empowers High Court to set aside orders that cause failure of justice.
