Point of Law: Additional Written Statement - legislature mandate behind the fixing of not more than 30 (thirty) days is for the reason that the defendants are already aware of the proposed amendments and when the amendments are allowed the period of 30 (thirty) days is sufficient enough to controvert the pleadings brought by way of an amendment.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. U.J. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. K.D. Chetri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

2. This is an application filed under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the learned Court of Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Money Suit No. 17/2019 whereby the prayer for filing of Additional Written Statement was rejected.

3. The facts of the instant case in brief is that the plaintiffs/respondents herein had filed the Suit being Money Suit No. 17/2019 seeking decree for payment of compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). The said Suit was registered as Money Suit No. 17/2019. The petitioners who are the defendants filed their written statement. Thereafter, the plaint was amended and the amended plaint was filed on 11.11.2019 and 07.01.2020 was the date of filing of the Additional Written Statement.

4. At this stage, it may be relevant to mention herein that the Additional Written Statement is a subsequent pleading within the meaning of the Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. On 07.01.2020, the petitioners sought for an adjournment on the ground that the defendant No. 3 was unwell and could not come to sign in the written statement and the engaged Advocate was also out of station. The case was thereafter fixed on 24.02.2020 for filing of the Additional Written Statement and on that day also, the defendant sought for time on the ground that some vital documents which are necessary were not with them for which the defendants required some time.

6. The Court below taking into consideration that the defendants were served a copy of the amended plaint on 11.11.2019 and the period of 90 (ninety) days having already lapsed, rejected the said petition seeking for time and fixed on 08.03.2020 for framing of issues. Thereupon, the petitioners sought for modification/recall of the order dated 24.02.2020 thereby to grant further time to file the additional written statement.

7. The said petition seeking for modification/recall of the order dated 24.02.2020 was rejected by the impugned order dated 27.07.2021. It is against the said order dated 27.07.2021 that the petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents at length.

9. I have also perused the impugned order as well as the order dated 24.02.2020 and the petition filed by the petitioners before the Trial Court seeking time for filing of the additional Written statement.

10. From the records of the case, it is apparent that the Court had already granted 90 (ninety) days time for filing of the additional written statement. It is relevant herein to note that the Provision of Order VIII Rule 1 is for the purpose of filing written statement. A perusal thereof would show that the defendant shall, within 30 (thirty) days from the date of services of summons upon him, present a written statement of his defence. The proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 however, authorizes the Trial Court to permit filing of the written statement beyond the period of 30 (thirty) days for reasons to be recorded in writing but puts an outer limit of 90 (ninety) days from the date of service of summons. It is relevant however to mention herein that the Supreme Court had in its decision in the case of Kailash vs. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480 though held that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC to be directory but observed that the time schedule prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC has been honoured ordinarily but only in exceptional circumstances, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendants and such extension is required in the interest of justice and grave injustice would be caused, if the time is not granted, the Trial Court can grant a further opportunity.