Case Note & Summary
The petitioner filed a suit against the respondent (sole defendant). Summons were issued, but the defendant failed to file a written statement within the prescribed period. After two years, the trial court allowed the defendant to file the written statement without assigning any reasons. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition. The High Court examined Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides that a written statement must be filed within 30 days from service of summons, extendable up to 90 days. The court noted that while the provision is directory and not mandatory, any extension beyond 90 days must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. In the present case, the trial court did not assign any reasons for allowing the filing after two years. The High Court held that the impugned order suffers from non-assignment of reasons and is therefore unsustainable. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to decide the suit expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Extension of Time - Order VIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The provision is directory but requires compliance within 90 days; extension beyond 90 days must be supported by reasons - Trial court allowed filing after two years without reasons - Held that the order is unsustainable and set aside (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the defendant to file written statement after two years from issuance of summons without assigning reasons.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Impugned order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the trial court is set aside. Trial court directed to decide the suit expeditiously.
Law Points
- Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory
- not mandatory
- but extension beyond 90 days requires recording of reasons
- Order VIII Rule 1 CPC
- Section 148 CPC
