Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were defendants in O.S.No.6525/2012 before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, filed writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 01.08.2017 on I.A.No.6, by which the trial court dismissed their application for permission to file the written statement. The respondent/plaintiff, M/s. Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., had filed the suit for declaration of title and for directing the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property by demolishing illegal constructions. The defendants contended that they were not served with summons in the suit and only came to know about the proceedings when they received notice in execution proceedings. They immediately filed an application seeking permission to file the written statement. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the written statement was not filed within 90 days from the date of service of summons as required under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay. The High Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the trial court ought to have taken a liberal approach in condoning the delay, especially since the defendants claimed lack of notice. The court noted that the right to contest the suit on merits should not be defeated on technical grounds. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned order, and permitted the defendants to file their written statement within four weeks, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- each to the plaintiff. The court directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Condonation of Delay - Order 8 Rule 1, Order 8 Rule 10, Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The petitioners/defendants sought permission to file written statement after delay, contending that they were not served with summons and came to know of the suit only when they received notice in execution proceedings. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the written statement was not filed within 90 days and no sufficient cause was shown. The High Court held that the trial court ought to have taken a liberal view and condoned the delay, as the defendants had a right to contest the suit on merits. The impugned order was set aside and the defendants were permitted to file written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- each. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the application filed by the defendants/petitioners seeking permission to file the written statement beyond the prescribed period under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the order dated 01.08.2017 on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.6525/2012, and permitted the defendants to file their written statement within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- each to the plaintiff. The trial court was directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Order 8 Rule 1 CPC
- Order 8 Rule 10 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Article 227 Constitution of India
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Right to contest on merits
- Liberal approach in condoning delay
