Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Maharashtra State Electricity Board and others, were defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 42 of 2003 filed by the respondent for declaration and injunction challenging a bill. The petitioners believed that a written statement had been filed on 29th April 2003, but later realized it was not filed. They filed an application for permission to file the written statement, which was rejected by the trial court on 25th August 2004. Aggrieved, they approached the High Court. The High Court noted that under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, the written statement is to be filed within 30 days, extendable up to 90 days for valid reasons. However, the provision has been held to be directory. If a genuine case is made out, the court can permit filing beyond 90 days. The delay in this case was due to a mistake on the part of the counsel, which is a valid ground. The court set aside the impugned order and permitted the petitioners to file the written statement within two weeks, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500 to the respondent.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Order VIII Rule 1 CPC - Directory Nature - The provision requiring filing of written statement within 30 days extendable up to 90 days is directory, not mandatory. If a party makes out a genuine case, the court can permit filing even beyond 90 days. In the present case, the delay was due to a mistake on the part of the counsel, which constitutes a valid ground. The trial court's rejection was set aside and the petitioners were permitted to file written statement subject to costs. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for permission to file written statement beyond the period of 90 days under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 25th August 2004, and permitted the petitioners to file the written statement within two weeks from the date of the order, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500 to the respondent.
Law Points
- Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory
- not mandatory
- court can permit filing of written statement beyond 90 days if genuine case is made out
- delay due to counsel's mistake is a valid ground
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (09) 145
Writ Petition No. 4623 of 2004
Shri R.K. Deshpande for petitioners, Ms. Ujwala Nandeshwar for respondent
Maharashtra State Electricity Board, through its Executive Engineer, CCO and M Division, Warora and two others
Rajesh s/o Pralhad Khobragade, Proprietor of M/s. Uday Metals
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging rejection of application for permission to file written statement
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to set aside the order dated 25th August 2004 rejecting their application to file written statement and to permit them to file the same
Filing Reason
The petitioners believed written statement was already filed on 29th April 2003 but later realized it was not filed; they filed an application for permission which was rejected
Previous Decisions
The trial court rejected the application for permission to file written statement on 25th August 2004
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for permission to file written statement beyond 90 days
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued delay was not deliberate but due to counsel's mistake; respondent argued petitioners had ample opportunity but failed to avail
Ratio Decidendi
Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory in nature; if a genuine case is made out, the court can permit filing of written statement even beyond 90 days. Delay due to counsel's mistake constitutes a valid ground.
Judgment Excerpts
No doubt that under Order VIII Rule 1, the respondent is expected to file written statement initially within thirty days and for some valid reason within 90 days. However, the said provision was held to be directory in nature.
If the party makes out a genuine case then the party can be directed to file written statement even beyond the period of 90 days.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 42 of 2003 for declaration and injunction. The petitioners believed written statement was filed on 29th April 2003 but later realized it was not. They filed an application for permission to file written statement, which was rejected on 25th August 2004. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VIII Rule 1
