The time for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC can be extended only in exceptional circumstances, underscoring the importance of adhering to procedural timelines.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns orders dated 24th March, 2021 and 26th November, 2021, passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ").

2. The order dated 24th March, 2021 struck off the defence of the petitioner (the defendant before the learned ADJ) and the order dated 26th November, 2021 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for review/recall of the said order.

3. Summons in CS 445/2019, preferred by the respondents against the petitioner, were issued on 11th August, 2021 and admittedly received by the petitioner on 27th August, 2021.

4. Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) requires a written statement, in response to the suit, to be filed within 30 days from the date of service of summons. The proviso to the said rule permits filing of the written statement on any other date as specified by the court for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than 90 days from the date of service of summons.

5. This period of 90 days, no doubt, is not mandatary and, in exceptional cases, can be further relaxed where sufficient cause is shown as held by the Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nankhu, 2005 4 SCC 480.

6. By 24th March, 2021, when the right to file written statement was struck off by the learned ADJ, 448 days had elapsed beyond the period of 90 days available under Order VIII Rule 1 read with proviso thereto.

7. In these circumstances, on 24th March, 2021, the learned ADJ struck off the defence of the petitioner/defendant.

8. The petitioner/defendant moved an application under Section 151 of CPC, seeking review/recall of the order dated 24th March, 2021, striking off his defence. It was sought to be submitted, therein, that the learned ADJ had, vide order dated 16th November, 2019, directed the petitioner to file written statement and to explore the possibility of settlement. On the next date, i.e. 7th January, 2020, further time was sought by the petitioner to file written statement. Even thereafter, the written statement was not filed.

9. The petitioner also sought to take advantage of the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic had hit the country in March, 2020 due to which periodic lockdowns were imposed.

10. The learned ADJ has, by the impugned order dated 26th November, 2021, rejected the petitioner's application for review/recall.

11. Reliance has been placed, by the learned ADJ, on the following paragraphs from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala & Co., (2018) 6 SCC 639:

`20. This provision has come up for interpretation before this Court in number of cases. No doubt, the words "shall not be later than ninety days" do not take away the power of the court to accept written statement beyond that time and it is also held that the nature of the provision is procedural and it is not a part of substantive law. At the same time, this Court has also mandated that time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. We would like to reproduce the following discussion from Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344:

"21....There is no restriction in Order 8 Rule 10 that after expiry of ninety days, further time cannot be granted. The court has wide power to "make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit". Clearly, therefore, the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory. Having said so, we wish to make it clear that the order extending time to file written statement cannot be made in routine. Th