Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
BHARAT KALRA – Appellant
Versus
RAJ KISHAN CHABRA – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3788 OF 2022 (@ SLP(C) No.63 of 2022)
Decided On : 09-05-2022
Delay in Filing Written Statement - Commercial Court Act - Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC - Judgment of 'Kailash V. Nankhu & Ors.' (2005) 4 SCC 480
Fact of the Case:
The appeal challenges an order by the High Court that did not condone a delay of 193 days in filing the written statement.
Finding of the Court:
The delay in filing the written statement could be compensated with costs, and denying the benefit of filing the written statement was deemed unreasonable. The appeal was allowed, and the order of the High Court was set aside, with the written statement already filed taken on record.
Issues: The main issue was the condonation of delay in filing the written statement and the applicability of the time limit for filing the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of 'Kailash V. Nankhu & Ors.' (2005) 4 SCC 480 to establish that the time limit for filing the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory for suits not governed by the Commercial Court Act, 2015.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order of the High Court was set aside. The written statement already filed was taken on record, and the trial Court was urged to expedite the decision of the suit.
Key Points: - The suit for injunction filed is not governed by the Commercial Court Act, 2015 (!) . - The time limit for filing the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory for suits not governed by the Commercial Court Act, 2015 (!) . - The delay in filing the written statement could be compensated with costs, and denying the benefit of filing the written statement was deemed unreasonable (!) . - The appeal was allowed, and the order of the High Court was set aside (!) . - The written statement already filed was taken on record (!) .
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court on 12.08.2021 whereby delay of 193 days in filing of the written statement was not condoned.
3. Admittedly, the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff is not the one which is governed by the Commercial Court Act, 2015. Therefore, the time limit for filing of the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory in view of the judgment of this Court reported as ‘Kailash V. Nankhu & Ors.’ reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480.
4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we find that the delay in filing of the written statement could very well be compensated with costs but denying the benefit of filing of the written statement is unreasonable.
5. Consequently, we allow the present appeal. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. The written statement already filed is taken on record.
5. We do hope that the trial Court shall expedite the decision of the suit keeping in view the old age of the plaintiff.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
The time limit for filing the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory for suits not governed by the Commercial Court Act, 2015, as established in the judgment of 'Kailash V.....
Cases should be considered and disposed of on merits rather than technicalities, and the delay in filing the written statement should not prevent the defendant from entitlement to file it.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the defendant to file the written statement within the prescribed period, the consequences of failing to do so, and the applica....
Filing of a written statement in civil suits must adhere strictly to the timelines stipulated under the Code of Civil Procedure, with no allowance for delay beyond 120 days under the Commercial Court....
Cases should be considered and disposed of on merits rather than technicalities.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC are procedural and not mandatory, and in non-commercial suits, the court has the power to condone the ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
