Question 1? What is the scope and manner of extending time for filing written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC as clarified in this judgment? Question 2? What are the conditions under which an extension of time for filing a written statement may be granted or refused, according to Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. and subsequent rulings? Question 3? What is the outcome for the case where written statement was filed after expiry of time with costs imposed, in terms of trial court and High Court review?

Key Points: - The extension of time for filing written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC shall be only by way of exception and for reasons to be recorded in writing by the court (!) (!) . - An extension should not be granted in cases of laxity or gross negligence by the defendant or counsel (!) . - After amendment w.e.f. 1.7.2002, defendants have 30 days to file the written statement from service of summons; extension can be granted only with reasons recorded in writing (!) (!) . - The judgment cites Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. for parameters: extension must be exceptional, justify justice, and may involve costs; routine extensions are not permitted (!) (!) . - In the case, neither trial court nor High Court provided reasons to justify accepting the late written statement; appellate court set aside trial and High Court orders and remitted to trial court to consider afresh in light of Kailash’s case (!) (!) .

Question 1?

What is the scope and manner of extending time for filing written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC as clarified in this judgment?

Question 2?

What are the conditions under which an extension of time for filing a written statement may be granted or refused, according to Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. and subsequent rulings?

Question 3?

What is the outcome for the case where written statement was filed after expiry of time with costs imposed, in terms of trial court and High Court review?