IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
Devraj Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Babli Devi – Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. 5882 Of 2018
Decided On : 12-03-2024
Written Statement - Divorce Petition - Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C., Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act - The court discussed the discretionary nature of Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C. and its interpretation in various judgments, emphasizing the need for the provision to advance justice and not defeat it. The court also highlighted the importance of reasonable exercise of discretion and the legislative objective behind the timelines prescribed under the CPC.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-petitioner filed a divorce petition, and the defendant-respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for expenses and sought to file a written statement after a significant delay. The court below allowed the application and accepted the written statement, leading to the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. is discretionary and the trial court may permit the defendant to file a written statement even after the statutory period of 90 days. The court also emphasized the need for reasonable exercise of discretion for the advancement of justice.
Issues: The issues revolved around the discretionary nature of Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C., the delay in filing the written statement, and the court's authority to allow the written statement after the statutory period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. is discretionary and should be reasonably exercised for the advancement of justice. It emphasized the need for the court to consider exceptional circumstances and the principles of natural justice in allowing the filing of a written statement after the statutory period.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding that the trial court's exercise of discretion in allowing the written statement to be taken on record was just and in line with the observations made by the Supreme Court. The court directed the trial court to consider and decide the pending proceedings expeditiously in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one is present on behalf of the respondent, even in the revised call.
2. This petition has been filed for following relief:
3. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the petition are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a divorce petition being Divorce Petition No. 340 of 2015 on 05.05.2015. Notice was issued on 05.05.2015 to the defendant-respondent Babli Devi for filing written statement in the aforesaid divorce petition by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bijnor. After receiving the notices issued in the aforesaid divorce petition, the defendant-respondent appeared and filed an application Ga-10 dated 18.01.2016 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and prayed for amount of Rs. 25,000/- for expenses of the aforesaid litigation. After filing the aforesaid application dated 18.01.2016 under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, the defendant-respondent has not filed the written statement and started delaying the disposal of the aforesaid divorce petition by seeking adjournments. On 04.01.2017, the case was directed to proceed ex-parte against the defendant-respondent fixing 16.03.2017. On 16.03.2017 defendant-respondent filed an application paper No. Ga-28 dated 16.03.2017 with the prayer that she may be given an opportunity to file written statement. The application filed by the defendant-respondent was allowed by the court. Thereafter, on 10.04.2018 the defendant-respondent Babli Devi filed an application (paper No. 44-Ga) in the aforementioned case and prayed for condonation of delay in filing the written statement and has also made a prayer to accept the written statement in the aforesaid case. Along with her application dated 10.04.2018, defendant-respondent has also filed his written statement paper No. 46-Ka. To the application (paper No. 44-Ga) filed by the defendant-respondent, petitioner filed his objections and has stated therein that under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C., written statement can be filed within maximum period of 90 days after receiving the notice of the case. The application filed by the defendant-respondent dated 10.04.2018, was filed after a lapse of two years and three months. The court below vide order dated 11.05.2018 allowed the application filed by the defendant-respondent paper No. 44-Ga on payment of cost of Rs. 1,500/- and has also accepted the written statement filed by the defendant-respondent paper No. 46 Ka. Hence the present petition.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Order 8 Rule 1 as amended by Act No. 22 of 2002 (w.e.f. 01.07.2022) written statement can be filed within a maximum period of 90 days from the date of service of summons on the defendant. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the amendment in Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C., there is no scope for granting any further time for filing written statement. It has been next contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. are mandatory in nature and the court below has no option but to reject the written statement, if filed beyond the period of 90 days.
5. Before proceeding the matter any further, it will be useful to look into the statutory provisions.
6. Order 8 Rule 1 provides that defendant shall file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons. Proviso to Rule 1 of Order 8 C.P.C provides, in case, defendant fails to file the written statement within said period of 30 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 90 days from the date of service of s
Aditya Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Bombay Swadesh Stores Ltd. And Others
Salem Advocate Bar Association Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India
Aligarh Development Authority and others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Desh Raj Vs. Balkishan (D) Through Proposed LR Ms. Rohini
Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal Kotah & Anr.
Rajinder Tiwari Vs.Kedar Nath (Deceased) Thr L.Rs. & Ors.
Sau. Vanita Pravin Gaikwad V. Sri Pravin Pundlik Gaikwad
The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. Vs. Pothan Joseph
Mohd. Mehtab Khan and others Vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim and others
The discretionary nature of Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C. and the need for its reasonable exercise to advance justice.
The court held that procedural unfairness due to technical irregularities can justify allowing the filing of Written Statements after delays, emphasizing the importance of justice over procedural str....
The court affirmed that procedural rules regarding the filing of written statements can be interpreted flexibly to ensure justice, allowing extensions in exceptional circumstances.
The court held that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC are directory, allowing written statements to be filed beyond prescribed delays in exceptional circumstances, particularly to serve the int....
The court has discretionary power to condone the delay in filing the written statement, subject to a stricter yardstick for non-commercial suits, and the defendant should be given an opportunity to e....
The striking off of a defendant's defence due to late filing of a written statement, despite court's extension, is unjustifiable, and such extensions are regarded as directory rather than mandatory, ....
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.