Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vesta Building Products Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 30 January 2017 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, in Special Civil Suit No. 100 of 2015. The trial court had rejected the petitioner's application (Exhibit 16) seeking leave to file a written statement and counterclaim. The suit was filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The petitioner was served with summons on 10 March 2015 and entered appearance on 27 March 2015. However, the written statement was not filed within the statutory period of 90 days from the date of service, i.e., by 8 June 2015. The petitioner filed the application for leave to file written statement and counterclaim on 16 September 2015, after a delay of about 100 days. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay and that the counterclaim was also belated. The High Court, in its analysis, noted that Order 8 Rule 1 CPC provides that the written statement shall be filed within 30 days from the date of service of summons, and the court may extend the time up to 90 days. Beyond 90 days, the court has no power to extend the time except in exceptional circumstances. The court found that the petitioner had not provided any satisfactory explanation for the delay. The reasons given were that the petitioner was trying to settle the matter amicably and that the counsel was busy, which were not considered sufficient cause. The court also held that the counterclaim, being a part of the written statement, could not be filed independently after the written statement was barred. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order. The court further directed the trial court to proceed with the suit expeditiously and dispose it of within one year from the date of the order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Order 8 Rule 1 CPC - Filing of Written Statement - Time Limit - The court held that the period of 90 days for filing written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory but the court must consider the length of delay, reasons for delay, and prejudice to the opposite party. In this case, the delay was inordinate and unexplained, and the trial court's refusal to condone the delay was justified. (Paras 5-10) B) Civil Procedure - Counterclaim - Filing Along with Written Statement - A counterclaim must be filed along with the written statement, and if the written statement is not allowed to be filed beyond time, the counterclaim also cannot be entertained. The court upheld the rejection of the counterclaim as it was filed after the expiry of the period for filing written statement. (Paras 11-12) C) Civil Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 151 CPC - The court observed that inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to circumvent the statutory provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. The trial court had no jurisdiction to extend the time beyond 90 days except in exceptional circumstances, which were not present. (Paras 13-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for leave to file written statement and counterclaim filed beyond the statutory period of 90 days under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the High Court should interfere with such discretion in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 30 January 2017. The court directed the trial court to proceed with the suit expeditiously and dispose it of within one year from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Order 8 Rule 1 CPC
- Order 8 Rule 9 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Sufficient cause for delay
- Filing of written statement beyond 90 days
- Counterclaim
- Inherent powers of court
