Case Note & Summary
The State of Goa and the Public Health Department filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 08/03/2013 and 08/10/2018 passed by the Court of the Adhoc District Judge 1, FTC, North Goa, Panaji. The impugned orders dismissed the petitioners' application for extension of time to file the written statement and subsequently for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The respondents are minors represented through their guardian and a doctor. The suit was for medical negligence. The summons were served on the petitioners on 27/11/2012. The petitioners filed an application under Order XXVII Rule 7 CPC for extension of time by one month, which was rejected on 08/03/2013 on the ground that they were duly served. Thereafter, the petitioners filed another application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement, which was also dismissed on 08/10/2018. The petitioners contended that Order XXVII Rule 7 CPC gives the Government a right to seek extension and that the delay was due to administrative reasons. The respondents opposed, arguing that the delay was inordinate and no sufficient cause was shown. The High Court held that Order XXVII Rule 7 CPC does not confer an unfettered right on the Government to seek extension; the court must consider the prejudice to the opposite party and the length of delay. The delay of over 5 years was not condonable without sufficient cause. The court also noted that Order VIII Rule 1 CPC prescribes a maximum of 90 days for filing written statement, and the proviso allows extension only in exceptional circumstances. The court found that the trial court's order was justified and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Extension of Time for Filing Written Statement - Order XXVII Rule 7 CPC - Government Suits - The State of Goa sought extension of time to file written statement in a medical negligence suit. The trial court dismissed the application as the summons were served on 27/11/2012 and the application was filed only in 2018. The High Court held that Order XXVII Rule 7 CPC does not confer an unfettered right on the Government to seek extension; the court must consider the prejudice to the opposite party and the length of delay. The delay of over 5 years was not condonable without sufficient cause. (Paras 2-10) B) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - The petitioners argued that the delay was due to administrative reasons. The court found that no sufficient cause was shown for the inordinate delay of over 5 years. The court emphasized that the right of the opposite party to a speedy trial cannot be defeated by the Government's laxity. (Paras 8-12) C) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Time Limit - Order VIII Rule 1 CPC - The court noted that Order VIII Rule 1 CPC prescribes a maximum of 90 days for filing written statement, and the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC allows extension only in exceptional circumstances. The court held that the delay of over 5 years was not exceptional and the trial court's order refusing extension was justified. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government is entitled to an extension of time to file written statement under Order XXVII Rule 7 CPC beyond the statutory period of 90 days, and whether the delay of over 5 years in filing the written statement should be condoned.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's orders dated 08/03/2013 and 08/10/2018. The petitioners were not permitted to file the written statement.
Law Points
- Order XXVII Rule 7 CPC does not confer an absolute right to extension of time for filing written statement by Government
- Court must consider prejudice to opposite party and length of delay
- Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause
- Delay of over 5 years not condonable without proper explanation
