Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri S. Indushekhar, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 25/11/2022 passed by the trial court in a partition suit (O.S. No. 105/2019). The trial court had rejected the petitioner's application to file a written statement on the ground that it was filed beyond the 90-day period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner, who is an advocate by profession, was a defendant in the suit. He contended that the delay was not intentional and that the trial court ought to have exercised its discretion to allow the written statement in the interest of justice. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the trial court's order was correct and that the petitioner had no right to file a written statement after the expiry of the statutory period. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory, and that courts have the discretion to extend the time for filing a written statement even beyond 90 days, provided sufficient cause is shown. The court noted that the trial court had failed to consider this settled legal position and had mechanically rejected the application. The High Court quashed the impugned order and permitted the petitioner to file his written statement within two weeks, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondents. The court emphasized that a liberal approach should be adopted to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure that all issues are adjudicated on merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Extension of Time - Order VIII Rule 1 CPC - The petitioner sought to file written statement beyond 90 days in a partition suit. The trial court rejected the application on the ground of delay. The High Court held that Order VIII Rule 1 is directory and not mandatory, and courts have discretion to extend time in the interest of justice, especially to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The impugned order was quashed and the petitioner was permitted to file written statement on payment of costs of Rs. 5,000. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 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 filing written statement. The court held that the trial court's order was contrary to the settled legal position that Order VIII Rule 1 is directory. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application to file written statement filed beyond 90 days under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the High Court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25/11/2022 passed by the trial court is quashed. The petitioner is permitted to file his written statement within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondents.
Law Points
- Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory
- not mandatory
- courts have discretion to extend time for filing written statement beyond 90 days
- liberal approach in allowing written statement to avoid multiplicity of proceedings
- costs can be imposed as a condition.
