Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were defendants in a civil suit (O.S.No.6032/2017) pending before the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 17.01.2020. By that order, the trial court rejected their application (IA No.2) filed under Order 8 Rule 1 and 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking acceptance of their written statement which was filed beyond the prescribed period of 90 days from the date of service of summons. The petitioners argued that the trial court ought to have exercised its discretion liberally as Order 8 Rule 1 is directory, not mandatory, and that the delay was due to bona fide reasons. The respondents, who were the plaintiffs in the suit, opposed the petition contending that the trial court's order was just and proper and that no interference was warranted under Article 227. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that while Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory and courts have discretion to extend time in exceptional circumstances, the trial court's order rejecting the application was not perverse or illegal. The court noted that the petitioners had not shown sufficient cause for the delay and that the trial court had exercised its discretion judiciously. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no ground to interfere with the impugned order under its supervisory jurisdiction.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Order 8 Rule 1 CPC - Extension of Time - The court considered whether the trial court's rejection of an application to accept a written statement filed beyond 90 days was proper. Held that Order 8 Rule 1 is directory and courts have discretion to extend time in exceptional circumstances, but the trial court's order was not perverse or illegal to warrant interference under Article 227. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 - Scope of Interference - The High Court examined the scope of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. Held that such jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or perversity, not to reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application (IA No.2) filed under Order 8 Rule 1 and 10 read with Section 151 CPC for acceptance of the written statement filed beyond the prescribed period of 90 days.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the trial court's order rejecting the application for acceptance of written statement was not perverse or illegal, and no interference under Article 227 was called for.
Law Points
- Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory
- not mandatory
- Court has discretion to extend time for filing written statement
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Section 151 CPC
