What is the status of the proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 CPC—are its provisions mandatory or directory? What are the circumstances under which a delay in filing a written statement can be condoned under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC in exceptional or hard cases? What is the approach to accepting a written statement filed after the expiry of 90 days from service of summons in exceptional cases?

Key Points: - The judgment discusses whether the proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is mandatory or directory. (!) (!) - It holds that exceptional circumstances can justify condoning the delay in filing the written statement and accepting out-of-time filings. (!) (!) (!) - It cites Salem Advocate Bar Association to emphasize that rules are meant to advance justice and may be construed liberally to prevent miscarriage of justice. (!) - The facts show condoning delay where the appellant acted on bona fide belief and due to non-availability of records with counsel. (!) (!) (!) - The High Court should have condoned the delay and allowed the written statement to be filed. (!) (!) - The decision sets aside the lower orders and directs the trial court to proceed within one year. (!)

What is the status of the proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 CPC—are its provisions mandatory or directory?

What are the circumstances under which a delay in filing a written statement can be condoned under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC in exceptional or hard cases?

What is the approach to accepting a written statement filed after the expiry of 90 days from service of summons in exceptional cases?