Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, who was the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 623/2009 pending before the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belgaum, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 28/07/2012 passed by the trial court on I.A. No. 8, which rejected the petitioner's application for extension of time to file the written statement. The petitioner also challenged the earlier order dated 18/04/2011 and the office report dated 16/06/2011. The suit was filed by the petitioner seeking certain reliefs against the respondents. The summons were served on the petitioner, and the petitioner was required to file the written statement within 30 days, extendable up to 90 days under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner failed to file the written statement within the prescribed period and filed an application for extension of time, which was rejected by the trial court on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown. The petitioner contended that the trial court erred in rejecting the application and that the proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 gives discretion to the court to extend time. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the trial court had correctly exercised its discretion. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the trial court's order was justified as the petitioner did not demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. The court observed that the discretion under the proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 must be exercised judicially and that the trial court had not committed any error of jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Extension of Time - Order 8 Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The petitioner/plaintiff sought to file written statement after the expiry of 90 days from the date of service of summons. The trial court rejected the application for extension of time. The High Court held that the proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 confers discretion on the court to extend time, but such discretion must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. The petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for the delay. The court upheld the trial court's order, finding no error of jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 227. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for extension of time to file the written statement beyond the period of 90 days from the date of service of summons under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the trial court rejecting I.A. No. 8 is upheld.
Law Points
- Order 8 Rule 1 CPC
- extension of time for filing written statement
- discretion of trial court
- sufficient cause
- proviso to Order 8 Rule 1
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
