Case Note & Summary
The State of Goa and its officers (petitioners) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 4 June 2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Civil Suit No.51/2010. The impugned order rejected the written statement filed by the State defendants on the ground that it was not filed within the time prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The respondent, M/s H.B. Singh & Co., had filed the suit against the State. The State defendants filed an application for condonation of delay along with the written statement, explaining that the delay occurred because they needed to obtain sanctions from the concerned department to appoint an advocate and to receive instructions. The trial court, however, disposed of both the condonation application and the respondent's application (Exhibit 11) seeking rejection of the written statement, by the impugned order without considering the merits of the condonation plea. The High Court heard arguments from Shri A. Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners, and Shri R. Menezes for the respondents. The court noted that the written statement was filed on 8 March 2011, after the trial court had granted time on 25 January 2011 subject to payment of costs of Rs.500, and that the State had also filed an application for condonation of delay. The High Court held that Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory, and that the court has discretion to condone delay for sufficient cause. The court found that the trial court had not applied its mind to the condonation application and had mechanically rejected the written statement. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration of the condonation application on its own merits, without being influenced by any observations in the impugned order. The court directed that the written statement be taken on record subject to the outcome of the condonation application.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Condonation of Delay - Order VIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The trial court rejected the written statement filed by the State defendants on the ground that it was not filed within the time prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, without considering the application for condonation of delay on its merits. The High Court held that Order VIII Rule 1 is directory and not mandatory, and that the court has discretion to condone delay for sufficient cause. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the condonation application. (Paras 3-6) B) Civil Procedure - Government Litigation - Administrative Delay - Order VIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The State defendants sought condonation of delay on the ground that time was required to obtain sanctions and instructions from the department. The High Court observed that such administrative bottlenecks can constitute sufficient cause for delay, and the trial court ought to have considered the application on merits rather than mechanically rejecting the written statement. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the written statement filed by the State beyond the period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC without considering the application for condonation of delay on merits
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 4/06/2011, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration of the application for condonation of delay on its own merits. The trial court was directed to decide the condonation application without being influenced by any observations in the impugned order. The written statement was directed to be taken on record subject to the outcome of the condonation application.
Law Points
- Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory
- not mandatory
- delay in filing written statement can be condoned for sufficient cause
- government departments may need additional time due to procedural requirements
