Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a retired judge, was a defendant in O.S. No. 171/2014 pending before the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru. The suit was filed by the respondents. The petitioner was served with summons but failed to file his written statement within the prescribed period. He filed I.A. No. IX under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking condonation of delay of 312 days in filing the written statement. The Trial Court rejected the application by order dated 16.03.2016. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court examined the reasons given by the petitioner for the delay, which included change of counsel and time taken to obtain necessary documents. The Court noted that the Trial Court had taken a strict view and rejected the application. The High Court held that the Trial Court ought to have taken a liberal approach in condoning the delay, as the petitioner had shown sufficient cause and no prejudice was caused to the respondents. The Court observed that the right to defend is a valuable right and should not be defeated on technical grounds. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and condoned the delay subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents. The written statement was directed to be taken on record.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The petitioner sought condonation of 312 days delay in filing written statement, citing reasons such as change of counsel and time taken to obtain documents. The Trial Court rejected the application. The High Court held that the Trial Court ought to have taken a liberal approach and condoned the delay, as the petitioner had shown sufficient cause and no prejudice was caused to the respondents. The impugned order was set aside and the delay was condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. (Paras 2-6) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to correct an error of law committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The High Court held that the power under Article 227 can be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and to ensure that the right to defend is not defeated on technical grounds. (Paras 1, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 312 days in filing the written statement, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 16.03.2016, and condoned the delay of 312 days in filing the written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents. The written statement was directed to be taken on record.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Liberal approach
- Right to defend
- Order VIII Rule 1 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
