Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from an order of the Trial Court refusing to take the written statement of the original defendant (the appellant) on the ground of delay. The appellant, Rangamma Soundappa Chetty, is the sister of the respondent, Palaniswamy Obuli Chetty. The respondent had filed a defamation suit against the appellant alleging that she used abusive language against him. The Trial Court declined to accept the written statement filed by the appellant beyond the period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, considered the facts and circumstances. The Court noted that the parties are siblings and that the dispute essentially involves family matters. The Court had earlier directed the siblings to appear and give an undertaking not to use abusive language against each other, but the plaintiff-brother refused and insisted on pursuing the defamation suit. The High Court observed that the power to accept a written statement after the expiry of the period under Order VIII Rule 1 is discretionary and should be exercised liberally, especially when the delay is not intentional and no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff. The Court held that the Trial Court ought to have accepted the written statement to decide the case on merits rather than on technicalities. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Trial Court to accept the written statement and proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The Court also invoked its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to do substantial justice.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order VIII Rule 1 - Written Statement - Delay - The Trial Court refused to accept the written statement of the defendant due to delay beyond the prescribed period. The High Court held that the power to accept a written statement after the expiry of the period under Order VIII Rule 1 is discretionary and should be exercised liberally, especially when the delay is not intentional and no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff. The Court directed the Trial Court to accept the written statement and proceed with the suit on merits. (Paras 1-5) B) Defamation - Sibling Dispute - Abuse of Process - The suit was filed by the brother against the sister for defamation based on abusive language. The High Court observed that siblings should resolve their differences amicably and not litigate against each other. However, since the plaintiff refused the proposal for settlement, the Court proceeded to adjudicate the appeal. (Paras 2-3) C) Civil Procedure Code - Section 151 - Inherent Powers - The High Court invoked its inherent powers to do substantial justice and directed the Trial Court to accept the written statement, emphasizing that procedural technicalities should not come in the way of deciding the case on merits. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in refusing to take the written statement of the original defendant on the ground of delay, and whether the appellate court should interfere with such discretion.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Trial Court, and directed the Trial Court to accept the written statement of the appellant and proceed with the suit on merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Order VIII Rule 1 CPC
- Order VIII Rule 10 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Defamation
- Written Statement
- Delay
- Condonation of Delay
- Sibling Dispute
