Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a judgment dated 12.7.2006 passed by the trial court decreeing the plaintiff's suit for Rs.16,43,200/- with future interest at 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until realisation and costs, for want of written statement under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiff, Dr. Mrs. Salima A. Rais, a medical practitioner running Rais Hospital, had placed an order for supply, installation and commissioning of Ultrasound Scanner Equipment in 1988 based on advertisements and representations by the defendants. The equipment was found defective, and despite complaints, the defendants failed to rectify the defects. In April 1990, the defendants took away a part of the equipment (Sector Probe) which was never repaired and returned. The cost of the equipment was Rs.6,32,000/-. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages claiming Rs.16,43,200/-, comprising the cost of the equipment, interest at 20% per annum for three years, and liquidated damages at 100% of the cost. The writ of summons was served upon the defendants in 1992. The suit was posted for directions before the Prothonotary & Senior Master on 29.1.1997 as no written statement had been filed. On that date, time of six weeks was granted to the defendants to file written statement, but they failed to do so. The trial court then passed the decree. The defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in passing the decree without requiring the plaintiff to prove its case. The High Court held that the trial court did not err in exercising its discretion under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, as the defendants had ample opportunity and neglected to file written statement. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Order VIII Rule 10 CPC - Failure to File Written Statement - The trial court passed a decree for Rs.16,43,200/- with interest at 18% per annum against the defendants for want of written statement. The defendants had been served in 1992 and granted time on 29.1.1997 but failed to file written statement. The High Court held that the trial court did not err in exercising its discretion under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, as the defendants had ample opportunity and neglected to file written statement. (Paras 1-4) B) Civil Procedure - Order VIII Rule 10 CPC - Discretion to Pass Judgment - The court noted that the power under Order VIII Rule 10 is discretionary and must be exercised judicially. However, where the defendant has been served and fails to file written statement within the prescribed time, the court may pass judgment against him. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's discretion. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in passing a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 without requiring the plaintiff to prove its case, when the defendants failed to file a written statement despite being granted time.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order VIII Rule 10 CPC
- discretion to pass judgment without written statement
- failure to file written statement
- decree for damages
- interest rate 18% per annum
