Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Lakshmamma, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, challenging the order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote, in O.S. No. 38 of 2022. The trial court had rejected the petitioner's application (I.A. No. 1) filed under Order 8 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking permission to file the written statement beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the original suit. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties. The petitioner was served with summons on 17.10.2022 and entered appearance through counsel on 18.10.2022. However, the written statement was not filed within 90 days. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 1 on 20.02.2023, along with a draft written statement, explaining that the delay occurred because the petitioner had to collect documents from various places and consult counsel. The trial court rejected the application solely on the ground that the written statement was not filed within the period of 90 days as mandated by Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, without considering whether the explanation constituted sufficient cause. The High Court held that the trial court's approach was erroneous. The court observed that Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory, and the court has discretion to accept a written statement beyond 90 days if sufficient cause is shown. The court emphasized that procedural rules are meant to advance justice and not to defeat it. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the petitioner to file the written statement within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000 to the respondents.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Condonation of Delay - Order 8 Rule 1, Order 8 Rule 9, Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The petitioner sought to file written statement after expiry of 90 days from service of summons; trial court rejected the application solely on ground of limitation without examining whether sufficient cause existed for the delay - Held that the court must consider the explanation for delay and adopt a liberal approach to allow the defendant to defend the case on merits, as procedural rules are meant to advance justice, not to defeat it (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application to file written statement beyond the prescribed period of 90 days under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC without considering the sufficiency of cause shown for the delay.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the trial court order dated 20.02.2023, and permitted the petitioner to file the written statement within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000 to the respondents.
Law Points
- Order 8 Rule 1 CPC
- Order 8 Rule 9 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Sufficient cause for condonation of delay
- Liberal construction of procedural law
- Right to defend
