IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
BIPIN CHANDER NEGI, J.
Pawan - Appellant
Versus
Indu Bansal and others - Respondents
CMPMO No. 622 of 2024
Decided on : 07-05-2025
(A) Civil Procedure Code - ORDER VIII Rule 1 and ORDER XVII Rule 1 - Right to file written statement - The petitioner was denied the right to file a written statement after multiple opportunities were provided, leading to an ex parte order - The court emphasized the importance of timely justice and the consequences of a party's inaction. (Paras 3, 4, 10, 14, 19)
(B) Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Supervisory jurisdiction - The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring that inferior courts act within their parameters and does not extend to correcting errors of law or fact. (Paras 15, 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, as defendant No.1, failed to file a written statement despite being granted multiple extensions, leading to an ex parte order against him. The right to file was struck off on 11.3.2024 after no statement was filed.
Findings of Court:
The court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court's order, emphasizing the need for parties to actively participate in proceedings.
Issues: The main issues were whether the trial court erred in striking off the right to file a written statement and the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner’s failure to file a written statement after numerous opportunities warranted the trial court's decision, and the High Court's supervisory role does not allow for re-evaluation of facts or law.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.3.2024, whereby the right of the present petitioner to file reply had been struck off.
2. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended with the petition.
3. The controversy in the case at hand needs to be understood in the context of relevant provisions of the civil procedure code, namely ORDER VIII Rule 1, ORDER XVII Rule 1 whereby written statement is required to be filed within ninety days from the date of service of summons and no more than three adjournment shall be granted to a party during hearing of the suit that to on showing sufficient cause respectively. The same are being reproduced herein below for a ready reference.
ORDER VIII Rule 1 reads as follows;
1. Written statement.— The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:
Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.
Order 17 Rule 1 reads as follows;
1. Court may grant time and adjourn hearing.— 1[(1) The court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit for reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the suit.]
4. Un-doubtedly procedure is a handmaid and not the mistress. Procedure has been codified in a procedural code in order to streamline the adjudicatory process inter-se the parties. The procedure prescribed is to ensure that a fair, reasonable, adequate opportunity is afforded to the parties to a lis to plead and prove their respective case. However procedure cannot be abused and proceedings cannot be un-necessarily protracted to the detriment of the opposing party.
5. Speedy trial requires an efficient justice dispensation system. In order to create an efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law, Courts are expected to be diligent and take timely action.
6. Delay, dilatory tactics ensure non-dispensation of timely justice, thereby, shaking the trust and confidence of a litigant in the justice delivery system, Courts are enjoined upon to perform their duties with the object of strengthening the confidence of a common man in the Institution entrusted with the administration of justice. Any effort which weakens the system and shakes the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged.
7. The suit in the case at hand was filed on 29th August, 2020. The present petitioner was the defendant No.1 in the suit so filed before the trial Court. He was served in the suit on 09.11.2021. Subsequent thereto, the matter was listed on 27.12.2021, 22.3.2022, 6.4.2022, 7.5.2022. Till 7th May, 2022, no written statement had been filed on behalf of the present petitioner.
8. Vide order dated 07.05.2022, time was granted to the present petitioner/defendant No.1 to file his written statement on or before 16.06.2022. Thereafter the matter got listed on 16.6.2022, 28.8.2022, 28.10.2022. Till 28.10.2022, no written statement had been filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1. By way of a last opportunity vide order dated 28.10.2022, time to file written statement was afforded and the matter was posted on 18.11.2022.
9. On the aforesaid date (18.11.2022), the petitioner/defendant No.1 did not appear, hence he was proceeded against ex parte. Subsequent to having been proceeded against ex parte, the matter was listed before the trial Court on 20.1.2023, 8.5.2023, 18.5.2023, 26.6.2023, 5.8.2023, 18.9.2023 and 25.09.2023.
10. On 25.09.2023, an application fil
The right to file a written statement can be struck off if a party fails to do so despite multiple opportunities, emphasizing the importance of timely justice.
The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of the 120-day limitation for filing a written statement and the lack of discretion for condonation of delay, as supported by relevant legal provisions an....
Procedural law should advance substantial justice, and in case of conflict, the court should lean towards substantial justice.
Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement require due diligence and are not a matter of right; the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting grave errors.
The court emphasized the need for granting procedural justice by allowing petitioners to seek condonation of delay in filing their written statement despite initial rejection.
Strict adherence to procedural deadlines for filing written statements is essential; ignorance of law does not excuse late filings.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.