Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original plaintiffs in a civil suit, challenged an order of the trial court dated 30 January 2010. By that order, the trial court accepted a pursis filed by the 1st to 7th respondents (defendants) and directed that their reply at Exhibit 12, originally filed to an application for temporary injunction, be treated as their written statement. The petitioners argued that no written statement had been filed within the outer limit under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended in 2002. They contended that the rule, though directory, requires cogent reasons for extension, and the pursis gave no reasons for the delay. The respondents' reply was filed in 2007, well within 90 days of service of summons, and was verified under Order VI Rule 15 CPC. The High Court noted the consistent practice in Maharashtra civil courts of filing exhaustive replies to injunction applications. It held that since the reply was already on record within the statutory period and was in the form of pleadings, treating it as the written statement caused no prejudice to the plaintiffs. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no error in the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Order VIII Rule 1 CPC - Extension of Time - The court held that since the reply to the injunction application was filed within 90 days of service of summons and was duly verified, treating it as the written statement caused no prejudice to the plaintiffs. The practice in Maharashtra of filing exhaustive replies to injunction applications was noted. (Paras 2-3)
B) Civil Procedure - Order VIII Rule 1 CPC - Directory Nature - The provision is directory, and time can be extended in rare cases for cogent reasons, but here no extension was needed as the reply was already on record within limitation. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in accepting a pursis to treat a reply filed to an injunction application as the written statement, without recording reasons for delay, when the reply was filed within 90 days of service of summons.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the trial court's order was correct as the reply was filed within 90 days of service of summons, was verified, and treating it as the written statement caused no prejudice to the plaintiffs.
Law Points
- Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory
- time for filing written statement can be extended in rare cases
- reply to injunction application can be treated as written statement if filed within limitation and verified
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (02) 85
Writ Petition No. 1058 of 2010
Shri G.S. Godbole i/by Shri D.D. Tiwari for the Petitioners
Kuldeep Umraosingh Ostwal & Anr.
Chandrakant N. Patel & 10 Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the trial court accepting a pursis to treat a reply as written statement.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (original plaintiffs) sought to quash the trial court order dated 30 January 2010.
Filing Reason
Petitioners contended that the defendants failed to file a written statement within the time prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and that the trial court erred in accepting the pursis without recording reasons.
Previous Decisions
The trial court passed the impugned order on 30 January 2010 accepting the pursis and directing that the reply at Exhibit 12 be treated as the written statement.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in treating the reply to the injunction application as the written statement without recording reasons for delay.
Whether the time for filing written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC can be extended in the absence of cogent reasons.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that no written statement was filed within the outer limit under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, and the rule, though directory, requires cogent reasons for extension, which were absent.
Petitioners relied on Mohammed Yusuf v. Fali Mohammad, Kailash v. Nanhku, and R.N. Jadi & Brothers v. Subhashchandra.
Respondents' counsel was not heard as the matter was decided on petitioners' submissions.
Ratio Decidendi
Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory. When a reply to an injunction application is filed within the statutory period of 90 days from service of summons and is duly verified, it can be treated as the written statement without causing prejudice to the plaintiffs, even if a formal pursis is filed later.
Judgment Excerpts
It is not in dispute that a reply to the application for temporary injunction which is now adopted as the Written Statement was filed well within 90 days from the date on which the summons of the suit was served to the Defendants.
The said reply is in the form of pleadings which is duly verified in accordance with Rule 15 of Order VI of the said Code.
The practice which is consistently followed in the Civil Courts in various Districts in the State of Maharashtra is that normally a very exhaustive reply is filed to an application for temporary injunction.
Procedural History
The suit was filed by the petitioners (plaintiffs). The defendants filed a reply to the temporary injunction application at Exhibit 12 in 2007. On 29 January 2010, the defendants filed a pursis seeking to adopt that reply as their written statement. The trial court accepted the pursis on 30 January 2010. The petitioners challenged this order by way of Writ Petition No. 1058 of 2010 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VIII Rule 1, Order VI Rule 15
- Constitution of India: Article 227
