Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, in an original side appeal, considered the condonation of a 156-day delay in filing a written statement by Google LLC, an intermediary defendant in a defamation suit. The suit was filed by an individual seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against several defendants, including Google LLC, to restrain publication of a defamatory interview video and to remove it from the internet. The appellant, as defendant no.6, had been served summons but filed its written statement beyond the 90-day statutory period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, moving an application for condonation of delay. The sole ground for delay was that instructions had to be obtained from various departments of Google headquartered in the United States, and that the plaintiff had not furnished the URL of the offending video, making it impossible for the intermediary to identify and remove it. The single judge dismissed the application, leading to the appeal. The legal issue before the division bench was whether the delay could be condoned. The appellant contended that such delays were routinely condoned and that the lack of URL was a genuine difficulty, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India and a Delhi High Court decision in FIITJEE Limited v. Vidya Mandir Classes Ltd. to argue that an intermediary’s obligation to take down content arises only upon provision of the URL. The respondent argued that no sufficient cause was shown. The court, after hearing arguments, held that condonation of delay in filing written statement is not to be granted as a matter of routine. It emphasized that the statutory 90-day period under CPC is strict and requires sufficient cause for delay. The court found that the appellant’s only defense was the absence of the URL, a plea that could have been raised well within time without any need for extensive inter-departmental instructions. No specific difficulties were cited. The judgments relied upon merely reiterated the settled legal position that an intermediary must be provided with the URL to comply with a removal order, but that did not explain the delay. Observing that the interests of both parties needed to be balanced, the court allowed the appeal and condoned the delay, but imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000 to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Authority within four weeks as a precondition. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The court thus balanced the need for procedural discipline with the appellant’s right to defend, while underscoring that delays cannot be lightly excused.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay in Filing Written Statement - Sufficient Cause Required - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VIII Rule 1 - The court held that delay in filing written statement is not to be condoned as a matter of routine; the statutory period of 90 days is strict. The appellant’s only defense of lack of URL could have been raised within time, and the need for inter-departmental instructions did not justify the delay. Balancing interests, delay condoned on payment of costs of Rs.1,00,000 to the High Court Legal Services Authority. (Paras 11-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 156 days in filing written statement by the defendant (intermediary) should be condoned.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; delay condoned subject to payment of Rs.1,00,000 costs to High Court Legal Services Authority within four weeks.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Delay in filing written statement under CPC Order VIII Rule 1 is 90 days
- sufficient cause must be shown
- condonation not routine
- costs may be imposed to balance interests
- intermediary’s obligation to remove content arises only upon provision of URL
