Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s. Valentine Ship Services and Mr. Valentine Dias, challenged an order dated 9th August 2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco da Gama, in Special Civil Suit No.25/03/A. The suit was filed by respondent no.1, Mr. Reiner Luz de Souza, against the petitioners and respondent no.2 for recovery of Rs.8,55,068.50. The petitioners failed to file their written statement within the statutory period of 90 days from service of summons. Subsequently, they sought permission to file the written statement, which was granted by the trial court on condition that they deposit the suit amount. Aggrieved by this condition, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The High Court held that the trial court had acted within its discretion under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that imposing a condition of deposit was not unreasonable given the circumstances. The court noted that the petitioners had not shown any sufficient cause for the delay and that the condition was intended to secure the interests of the plaintiff. The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Extension of Time - Order 8 Rule 1 CPC - The court has discretion to extend time for filing written statement beyond 90 days, and may impose conditions such as deposit of the suit amount - The trial court's order permitting filing of written statement on deposit of Rs.8,55,068.50 was upheld as a valid exercise of discretion (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in permitting the petitioners to file their written statement beyond the period of 90 days on condition of depositing the suit amount.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 9th August 2004.
Law Points
- Order 8 Rule 1 CPC
- discretion of court to extend time for filing written statement
- condition of deposit as a precondition for filing written statement
- recovery suit
- condonation of delay
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (03) 169
WRIT PETITION NO. 554 OF 2004
Mr. S. G. Bhobe for petitioners, Mr. A. R. Kantak for respondent no.1
M/s. Valentine Ship Services and Mr. Valentine Dias
Mr. Reiner Luz de Souza and Mr. Conrad D'Silva
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging trial court order permitting filing of written statement on condition of deposit of suit amount.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to set aside the condition of deposit imposed by the trial court for filing written statement.
Filing Reason
Petitioners failed to file written statement within 90 days and were allowed to file only upon depositing the suit amount.
Previous Decisions
Trial court passed order dated 9th August 2004 in Special Civil Suit No.25/03/A permitting filing of written statement on deposit of Rs.8,55,068.50.
Issues
Whether the trial court's order imposing a condition of deposit for filing written statement beyond 90 days is valid.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the condition of deposit was harsh and unreasonable.
Respondent no.1 supported the trial court's order as a valid exercise of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
The court has discretion under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC to extend time for filing written statement and may impose conditions such as deposit of the suit amount to secure the plaintiff's interest, especially when no sufficient cause for delay is shown.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition, the petitioners take exception to Order dated 9th August, 2004, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco da Gama, in Special Civil Suit No.25/03/A, permitting the petitioners to file written statement upon deposit of the amount of Rs.8,55,068.50 p. by them.
Procedural History
Respondent no.1 filed Special Civil Suit No.25/03/A for recovery of Rs.8,55,068.50. Petitioners failed to file written statement within 90 days. They sought permission to file written statement, which was granted on condition of deposit. Petitioners challenged this condition by filing Writ Petition No. 554 of 2004.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 8 Rule 1
