The court affirmed that the timelines for filing written statements are directory in non-commercial disputes, allowing the defendant an opportunity to submit his statement upon payment of costs.

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar whereby the defence of the defendant-petitioner was struck off for non-filing of the written statement despite a period of 90 days (extended upto 169 days) having elapsed.

2. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner would contend that since an application had been filed under Section 21(1) of CPC where objection was raised qua territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the written statement could not be filed. Learned counsel, however, prays that given one opportunity, the defendant-petitioner would file his written statement and that the defendant-petitioner is also willing to compensate the plaintiff-respondent by way of costs.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent would contend that despite the period of 90 days (extended upto 169 days) having elapsed from the date of service of the summons, the defendant-petitioner failed to file his written statement and as such his defence was rightly struck off and no fault can be found with the impugned order.

4. Heard.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Desh Raj vs. Balkishan (D) through proposed LR Ms. Rohini [(2020) (1) RCR (Civil) 807] has held as under :

'ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION

11. At the outset, it must be noted that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 through Section 16 has amended the CPC in its application to commercial disputes to provide as follows:

12. Hence, it is clear that post coming into force of the aforesaid Act, there are two regimes of civil procedure. Whereas commercial disputes [as defined under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015] are governed by the CPC as amended by Section 16 of the said Act; all other non-commercial disputes fall within the ambit of the unamended (or original) provisions of CPC.

13. The judgment of Oku Tech (supra) relied upon the learned Single Judge is no doubt good law, as recently upheld by this Court in SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. KS Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2019 SC 2691, but its ratio concerning the mandatory nature of the timeline prescribed for filing of written statement and the lack of discretion with Courts to condone any delay is applicable only to commercial disputes, as the judgment was undoubtedly rendered in the context of a commercial dispute qua the amended Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

14. As regard the time-line for filing of written statement in a non commercial dispute, the observations of this Court in a catena of decisions, most recently in Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala and Co., (2018) 6 SCC 639 holds the field. Unamended Order VIII Rule I, CPC continues to be directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of Courts to condone certain delays.'

It is trite that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC have been held to be directory in nature and not mandatory in the case of a non-commercial suit.

6. In the present case the suit is for recovery of damages and compensation from the defendant-petitioner for the defamatory statements made by him against the plaintiff-respondent. The defendant-petitioner is likely to suffer irreparable loss in case he is not permitted to file his written statement. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Desh Raj's case (supra) and in order to do complete justice between the parties, one opportunity is granted to the defendant-petitioner to file his written statement on or before the date fixed in the Trial Court i.e. 08.10.2025, subject to payment of ?30,000 (rupees thirty thousand) as costs to be paid to the plaintiff-respondent. The payment of costs shall be a condition precedent for filing of the written statement.

7. It is made clear that in case the written statement is not filed on or before the next date of hearing i.e. 08.10.2025, the present revision petition shall be deemed to hav