IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the timeline for filing a written statement under the CPC is directory but requires sufficient justification for any delays, which was not demonstrated in this case.

JUDGMENT :

Bharat P. Deshpande, J.

1. Heard Mr. Joshi for the Petitioner and Ms. Viegas for the Respondent.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Heard finally with consent of parties.

4. The challenge in the present Petition is to the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 11.12.2023, thereby rejecting the Application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement.

5. Mr. Joshi appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is the Defendant who received a summons from the Trial Court in a suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff on 18.08.2022. The Defendant appeared before the Trial Court and sought an extension of time to file a written statement, which was granted. He submits that thereafter, the Petitioner filed an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on 05.11.2022. Such Application was heard and decided by the Trial Court on 09.02.2023. Upon rejection of such Application, the Petitioner filed an Application for condonation of delay on 03.03.2023 together with a written statement to be taken on record. An additional affidavit in support of the Application for condonation of delay was filed on 27.06.2023. Vide impugned order dated 11.12.2023, the learned Trial Court rejected the delay Application, which is challenged in the present Petition.

6. Mr. Joshi appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC are directory and not mandatory and therefore, the time limit mentioned therein could be condoned. In this respect, he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Process Equipments and Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs. Honest Derivatives Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1877, apart from the judgments referred to and considered by the Trial Court in the impugned order.

7. Mr. Joshi would submit that the Petitioner/Defendant has a strong case in his defence and if opportunity is denied for filing the written statement, serious prejudice would be caused. He submits that the Petitioner is ready to deposit costs for condonation of delay and no prejudice will be caused to the Plaintiff/Respondent.

8. The learned Counsel for the Respondent while justifying the orders passed by the Trial Court would submit that the observations in the impugned order clearly go to show that the reasons for condonation of delay are not at all justifiable and that such delay was deliberate.

9. It is clear from the chronology of dates which have been pointed out by Mr. Joshi that summons were served on Defendant on 18.08.2022 whereas the period of 30 days to file a written statement expired on 17.09.2022. The Petitioner/Defendant also applied for an extension of time to file the written statement which was initially granted. However, instead of filing the written statement, though time was extended, an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint was filed. It is necessary to note here that along with such an Application for rejection of the plaint, the Petitioner/Defendant could have easily filed the written statement. However, the reasons disclosed in the Application for condonation of delay show that the in-house Advocate advised the Petitioner/Defendant that once an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is filed, there is no need to file a written statement till such Application is decided. The Petitioner was also advised that there would not be any need to file any written statement since the plaint would be rejected. This is the only reason which is disclosed in the Application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement.

10. The calculations shown for delay in the Application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement are also not correct. The reasons disclosed in paragraphs 2 to 6 of the delay Application read thus :

“2. The Defendant filed Application for Rejection of Plaint on 03/11/2022. The same has been rejected by this Hon’ble Court by an Order dated 9th February, 2023. The Defendant would cons