The court reinforced that adherence to statutory timelines for filing written statements is crucial, and extensions must be justified with proper applications and reasons.

COMMON ORDER

Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC states that written statement should be filed within thirty days from the date of service of summons on the defendant. The proviso to the Rule permits the defendant 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. In Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. UOI (2005) 6 SCC 344 , it was clarified that the upper limit of ninety days is directory. This provision has engaged the attention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts during the last two decades. It, however, appears that the practice of the trial courts is not in consonance with the principles laid down.

2. Let me trace the facts leading to the filing of the above civil revision petitions. The plaintiff in O.S No.140 of 2022 on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi is the revision petitioner herein. The defendant was a former employee of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was terminated from service on 08.04.2022. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant is engaged in acts that are detrimental to its interests. Hence, O.S No.140 of 2022 was instituted to restrain the defendant from doing so. The plaintiff sought interim injunction against the defendant. The trial court issued only notice without granting ex-parte interim order. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed CRP(MD)No.1941 of 2022. Interim injunction was initially granted on 22.09.2022. The CRP came to be disposed of on 21.06.2023 in the following terms :

“11.Considering the aforesaid submissions, I am inclined to dispose of this Civil Revision Petition, by directing the learned I Additional District Judge at Tuticorin to dispose I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.140 of 2022, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending disposal of the above I.A., the interim order passed by this Court on 22.09.2022, which has been subsequently extended from time to time, shall remain in force. The counter affidavit, which has been filed by the respondent containing statements against the counsel/legal firm shall stand expunged. However, there shall be no restriction on the part of the respondent to file appropriate counter affidavit in I.A.No.2 of 2022. In case, any further statements are made, it is open for the petitioner to contest the same.”

3. After the CRP was disposed of, on 02.08.2023, the defendant filed memo by enclosing the copy of the order dated 21.06.2023 along with his written statement. The trial court took the written statement on file. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A No.6 of 2023 for rejection of the written statement. The court below vide order dated 03.07.2024 dismissed I.A No.6 of 2023. Questioning the same, the plaintiff filed CRP(MD)No.1853 of 2024. CRP(MD)No.1854 of 2024 has been filed challenging the order dated 02.08.2023 whereby the written statement was taken on file.

4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff/revision petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the memo of grounds of revision and called upon this Court to set aside the impugned orders and allow the civil revision petitions as prayed for.

5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant/respondent submitted that the impugned orders are well reasoned. He pointed out that on 26.09.2022, vakalat was filed by the defendant in the suit. The matter was adjourned to 14.10.2022 and then to 10.11.2022. It was adjourned from time to time for filing written statement. When the matter was posted on 02.08.2023, written statement was filed. His contention is that since the court itself had on its own extended the time for filing written statement, it cannot be stated that there was delay in filing. He relied on the decision reported in 2007 (4) CTC 326 ( R.N.Jadi and Brother v. Subhashchandra ). He called upon this Court to dismiss the c