Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ravindralal Biharilal Srivastava, was the defendant No.1 in Special Civil Suit No.1056/2010 filed by respondent No.1, Vimalkumar Santlal Srivastava, for recovery of damages of Rs. 5 crore on account of alleged malicious arrest and illegal detention of the plaintiff, who was a mechanical engineer. The trial court, by its interim order dated 04/08/2012, refused to take the written statement of the defendant on record on the ground that the defendant was not diligent enough to fulfill his undertaking. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court considered the question of procedure under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner's counsel argued that in the interest of substantial justice, the written statement ought to have been permitted to be placed on record, and relied on the Supreme Court ruling in M/s. R. N. Jadi and Brothers v. Subhashchandra, AIR 2007 SC 2571, which followed Kailash v. Nanhku (2005) 4 SCC 480, holding that Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory. The respondent's counsel relied on Kailash v. Nanhku and M/s. Aditya Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd., AIR 2007 SC 1574. The High Court held that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC are directory, and the trial court ought to have considered the reasons for delay and permitted the written statement to be taken on record in the interest of substantial justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to take the written statement on record and proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Order VIII Rule 1 CPC - Directory Nature - The provision of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory, not mandatory, and courts have discretion to condone delay in filing written statement if sufficient cause is shown, in the interest of substantial justice. The trial court's refusal to accept the written statement solely on the ground of delay was set aside. (Paras 4-6) B) Civil Procedure - Suit for Damages - Malicious Arrest and Illegal Detention - The suit was for recovery of damages of Rs. 5 crore for alleged malicious arrest and illegal detention of the plaintiff, who was a mechanical engineer. The defendant sought to file a written statement after the prescribed time. (Paras 2-3) C) Precedent - Kailash v. Nanhku - Order VIII Rule 1 CPC - The Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku (2005) 4 SCC 480 held that Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory, and the court may accept a written statement filed beyond the prescribed time if the delay is satisfactorily explained. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in refusing to take the written statement on record on the ground of delay, given that Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and the defendant had shown sufficient cause for the delay.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 04/08/2012, and directed the trial court to take the written statement on record and proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory
- not mandatory
- and courts have discretion to condone delay in filing written statement if sufficient cause is shown
- in the interest of substantial justice.
