Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rameshlal Kukreja, was the defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.3620 of 2012 pending before the 4th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Nagpur. The respondents, Yogesh and Mukesh Jogi, were the plaintiffs. The petitioner filed an application (Exh.12) seeking permission to file his written statement on record, which was objected to by the respondents on the ground that it was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The trial court rejected the application, leading the petitioner to file a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the nature of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, which requires the defendant to file a written statement within 30 days from service of summons, extendable up to 90 days for reasons recorded in writing. The court noted that the provision has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as directory, not mandatory, and that the court has discretion to allow late filing in exceptional circumstances. The High Court found that the trial court had not considered the reasons for delay and had mechanically rejected the application. The court held that procedural law is the handmaid of justice and that substantial justice should not be defeated by technicalities. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed that the written statement be taken on record subject to payment of costs of Rs.500 to the respondents. The rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Time Limit - Order VIII Rule 1 CPC - The time limit of 30 days (extendable up to 90 days) for filing written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory - The trial court has discretion to allow filing beyond the prescribed period for reasons recorded in writing - In the present case, the petitioner/defendant sought permission to file written statement after the expiry of 90 days, which was rejected by the trial court - The High Court held that the rejection was erroneous as the provision is directory and the court should have considered the reasons for delay - Held that the impugned order is set aside and the written statement is taken on record subject to costs (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the time limit prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for filing written statement is mandatory or directory, and whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for permission to file written statement beyond the prescribed period.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 11.10.2012, and directed that the written statement be taken on record subject to payment of costs of Rs.500 to the respondents. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory
- not mandatory
- court has discretion to allow late filing of written statement for reasons recorded
- procedural law is handmaid of justice
- substantial justice over technicalities
