Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KRISHNA RAO, J.
Hemant Kanoria & Anr. - Plaintiffs
Versus
KPMG Assurance & Consulting Services LLP & Ors. - Defendants
GA No. 2 of 2024 With GA No. 3 of 2024 With GA No. 4 of 2024 With GA No. 5 of 2024 With GA No. 6 of 2024 With GA No. 7 of 2024 With GA No. 8 of 2024 With GA No. 9 of 2024 With GA No. 10 of 2024 With GA No. 11 of 2024 With GA No. 12 of 2024 With GA No. 13 of 2024 With GA No. 14 of 2024 With GA No. 15 of 2024 With GA No. 16 of 2024 With GA No. 17 of 2024 With GA No. 18 of 2024 With GA No. 19 of 2024 With GA No. 20 of 2024 With GA No. 21 of 2024 In CS 242 of 2023
Decided On : 04-07-2024
Delay - Written Statement - Order VIII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure - The court interpreted the provisions regarding the filing of written statements, emphasizing the need for timely submissions while allowing extensions under exceptional circumstances, ultimately granting defendants a final opportunity to file their statements with costs.
Fact of the Case:
Defendants filed applications to condone delays in submitting written statements beyond the 30-day limit after receiving writs of summons. The delays ranged from 88 to 125 days, with defendants citing various reasons for their inability to file on time.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the defendants had shown sufficient cause for the delays, they had affirmed their written statements within 120 days. The court decided to grant one final opportunity to file the written statements, subject to costs.
Issues: Whether the defendants had sufficient cause for the delays in filing their written statements and if the court could grant extensions beyond the stipulated time limits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC are procedural and can be interpreted flexibly to allow extensions in exceptional cases, provided justifications are presented.
Result: The court granted defendants one week to file their written statements, subject to payment of costs.
JUDGMENT :
(Krishna Rao, J.) :
1. G.A. No. 2 of 2024 filed by defendant no.6 for condoning delay of 96 days in filing written statement. The defendant no.6 received writ of summons on 18th January, 2024 and the defendant no.6 ought to have filed the written statement by 17th February, 2024 i.e. within 30 days from the date of receipt of writ of summons but the defendant no.6 affirmed written statement on 23rd April, 2024 i.e. after the period of 66 days from the date of filing of written statement and the defendant has taken total 96 days to affirm affidavit of the written statement. The defendant no.6 has filed the present application for extension of time to file written statement on 26th April, 2024 i.e. 100th days from the date of receipt of writ of summons.
2. G.A. No. 3 of 2024 filed by defendant no.9 for condoning delay of 94 days in filing written statement. The defendant no.9 received writ of summons on 20th January 2024 and the defendant no.9 ought to have filed the written statement by 19th February, 2024 i.e. within 30 days from the date of receipt of writ of summons but the defendant no.9 affirmed the written statement on 23rd April, 2024 i.e. after the period of 64 days from the date of filing of the written statement and the defendant has taken total 94 days to affirm affidavit of the written statement. The defendant no.9 has filed the present application for extension of time to file written statement on 26th April, 2024 i.e. 98th days from the date of receipt of writ of summons.
3. G.A. No. 4 of 2024 filed by defendant no.12 for condoning delay of 94 days in filing written statement. The defendant no.12 received writ of summons on 20th January, 2024 and the defendant no.12 ought to have filed the written statement by 19th February, 2024 i.e. within 30 days from the date of receipt of writ of summons but the defendant no.12 affirmed the written statement on 23rd April, 2024 i.e. after the period of 64 days from the date of filing of written statement and the defendant has taken total 94 days to affirm affidavit of the written statement. The defendant no.12 has filed the present application for extension of time to file written statement on 26th April, 2024 i.e. 98th days from the date of receipt of writ of summons.
4. G.A. No. 5 of 2024 filed by defendant no.8 for condoning delay of 108 days in filing written statement. The defendant no.8 received writ of summons on 6th February, 2024 and the defendant no.8 ought to have filed the written statement by 7th March, 2024 i.e. within 30 days from the date of receipt of writ of summons but the defendant no.8 affirmed the written statement on 24th May, 2024 i.e. after the period of 78 days from the date of filing of written statement and the defendant has taken total 108 days to affirm affidavit of the written statement. The defendant no.8 has filed the present application for extension of time to file written statement on 14th June, 2024 i.e. 130th days from the date of receipt of writ of summons.
5. G.A. No. 6 of 2024 filed by defendant no.10 for condoning delay of 112 days in filing written statement. The defendant no.10 received writ of summons on 2nd February, 2024 and the defendant no.10 ought to have filed the written statement by 3rd March, 2024 i.e. within 30 days from the date of receipt of writ of summons but the defendant no.10 affirmed written statement on 24th May, 2024 i.e. after the period of 82 days from the date of filing of written statement and the defendant has taken total 112 days to affirm affidavit of the written statement. The defendant no.10 has filed the present application for extension of time to file written statement on 14th June, 2024 i.e. 134th days from the date of receipt of writ of summons.
6. G.A. No. 7 of 2024 filed by defendant no.15 for condoning delay of 108 days in filing written statement. The defendant no.15 received writ of summons on 6th February, 2024 and the defendant no.15 ought to have filed the written statement by 7th
The court affirmed that procedural rules regarding the filing of written statements can be interpreted flexibly to ensure justice, allowing extensions in exceptional circumstances.
The court held that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC are directory, allowing written statements to be filed beyond prescribed delays in exceptional circumstances, particularly to serve the int....
The provision of Order VIII Rule 1 is directory and not mandatory, and the court has the power to extend the time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided.
The court holds that delays in filing additional written statements can be condoned under Rule 9 of Order VIII provided there is sufficient cause and no prejudice is caused to the opposing party.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on extending the filing period for written statements under CPC, 1908, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on limitation periods....
The striking off of a defendant's defence due to late filing of a written statement, despite court's extension, is unjustifiable, and such extensions are regarded as directory rather than mandatory, ....
Defendants must file a formal application to extend time for the written statement beyond thirty days, as failure to do so results in forfeiture of the right to file.
The court ruled that the limitation for filing a written statement is strict and can only be extended in exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case.
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
