1. Suit for injunction — Delay in filing written statement — Refusal of condonation by High Court — Appeal. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 737
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
Important Points
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. Nankhu & Ors.' (2005) 4 SCC 480.
Subject
Civil Law - Civil Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
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.
Judgement Key Points
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 (!) .
What is the applicability of the time limit for filing the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC for suits not governed by the Commercial Court Act, 2015?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Gaurav Kumar Dalal, Pradeep Teotia, Ashok Bannidinni, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Shrey Ashat, Preetika Mishra, Vikrant Mehta, Sudhir Naagar, Advocates
For the Petitioner(s):Gaurav Kumar Dalal, Pradeep Teotia, Ashok Bannidinni, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Shrey Ashat, Preetika Mishra, Vikrant Mehta, Sudhir Naagar, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Condonation of delay — Challenge against High Court order refusing to take written statement on record. (Para 2 )
3. Non-commercial suit — Order VIII Rule 1 CPC time limit non-mandatory — Delay compensable by costs. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Time limit for filing written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory, not mandatory, in suits not governed by Commercial Courts Act, 2015. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Written statement taken on record — Trial court directed to expedite. (Para 5 )
6. Is the time limit for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC mandatory for all civil suits?
No. For suits not governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the time limit for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is not mandatory. (Para 3 )
7. How can a court address a delay in filing a written statement in a non-commercial suit?
The court may condone the delay and compensate the opposing party with costs. (Para 4 )
8. Under what circumstances is denying the filing of a written statement considered improper in a non-commercial suit?
Denying the benefit of filing a written statement is considered unreasonable when the delay can be compensated with costs. (Para 4 )
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.
