Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 12508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Devan M. Desai, J
Somaji Manaji Thakore – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8301 of 2017

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.M. Bhatt
For the Respondents: Chirag Upadhyay

Judicial discretion to permit the filing of a written statement beyond the 90-day statutory limit is not absolute. Such relief is reserved for diligent litigants and cannot be invoked to excuse gross negligence, unexplained inordinate delays, or a lack of bona fides by a party.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 1 - Written Statement - Strict adherence to procedural timelines - Power of the court to condone delay beyond the 90-day period - Limitation of discretion when a party exhibits gross negligence. (Paras 7-8, 16)

(B) Procedural Law - Principles of application - Procedural norms are designed to facilitate effective justice; they cannot be invoked as a mechanism to shield a litigant's lethargy or lack of bona fides when the period of delay is inordinate and unexplained. (Paras 10, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought a declaration and permanent injunction. After the respondent failed to file a written statement within the mandated timeframe, the trial court closed the respondent's right to do so, and the litigation progressed to the framing of issues and oral evidence. Approximately four and a half years after the closure, the respondent moved an application to reopen the stage for filing a written statement, which was granted by the trial court. The petitioners challenged this order, citing the inordinate delay and lack of explanation.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the explanation provided for the delay, characterized as administrative reorganization, was a belated excuse unsubstantiated by evidence. The court held that the trial court failed to exercise judicial discretion soundly, as leniency cannot be extended to a litigant who has been consistently inactive and negligent throughout the proceedings.

Issues: Whether the court is justified in permitting the filing of a written statement after an inordinate, unexplained delay of several years, and whether such discretion respects the statutory intent regarding procedural timelines.

Ratio Decidendi: While procedural laws act as handmaids to justice, judicial discretion to condone delays does not extend to excusing gross negligence. A party seeking equitable relief must demonstrate diligence, and where there is a lack of valid explanation for a long delay, the court must adhere strictly to the procedural requirements to balance the rights of the parties.

Result: Petition allowed; the impugned order of the trial court is set aside.

Table of Content
1. procedural context for reopening written statement filing applications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. parties' contentions on the procedural requirements of order viii rule 1 of the code. (Para 5 , 6)
3. judicial assessment of inordinate delay and lack of explanation in litigation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. evaluation of precedents regarding the exercise of discretion in procedural law. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. the court lacks discretion to permit written statements beyond mandatory timelines. (Para 16)
6. judgment setting aside lower court order and limiting participation to legal issues. (Para 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT

==========================================================

1. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 by the petitioners praying for the following reliefs:

“(A) Your Lordships be graciously pleased to admit and allow this petition and be further pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dtd. 9/2/2017 passed below Exh. 51 in Regular Civil Suit No. 294/2010 filed in the Court of Ld. Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Rural) at Ahmedabad in the interest of justice and an appropriate writ, direction or order be directed to be issued to the respondent and a yadi be also sent at the Court of Ld. Additional Senior Civil Judge (Rural) at Ahmedabad or compliance in Regular Civil suit No. 294/2010.

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be graciously pleased to stay the implementation and execution of the impugned order dtd. 9/2/2017 passed below Ex. 51 in R.C.s. No. 294/2010 and, thereby pass an order not to give Exhibit number to the written statement permitted to be taken on record by the Ld. Trial Court in the suit and an appropriate writ, direction or order be directed to be issued to the respondent in that behalf.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP, Mr. Chirag Upadhyay waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.M. Bhatt for the petitioners and learned AGP, Mr. Chirag Upadhyay for the respondent – State. Upon request of learned advocates for both the parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:

4.1 The petitioners – original plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant – State, who did not file the written statement within the stipulated period of time as envisaged under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Code”). The right to file written statement was closed on 20.04.2012. The application to reopen the stage of filing written statement, Exhibit – 51, came to be filed by the defendant – State. After hearing the parties, the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur allowed the application by imposing a cost of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited before the District Legal Services Authority.

4.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the reopening of the stage to file written statement, the petitioners – plaintiffs are before this Court by way of the present petition.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the petitioners filed a suit for the land situated at Village Makarba bearing Survey No. 385 admeasuring about Hec-Are-Sq.Mtr. 1-24-44 being an old tenure land. The plaintiffs have asserted their rights by virtue of adverse possession. It is submitted that the suit was instituted on 09.04.2010. Though the summons of the suit were duly served upon the defendant, the defendant, except filing appearance, did not file written statement. Resultantly, the right to file written statement came to be closed by the learned Court below on 20.04.2012. The issues were framed at Exhibit – 25 on 10.04.2014. The examination-in-chief was submitted by the plaintiff on 08.08.2016. The time was sought for by the defendant for th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 12508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADDevan M. Desai, JSomaji Manaji Thakore – AppellantVersusState – RespondentR/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8301 of 2017

Judicial discretion to permit the filing of a written statement beyond the 90-day statutory limit is not absolute. Such relief is reserved for diligent litigants and cannot be invoked to excuse gross negligence, unexplained inordinate delays, or a lack of bona fides by a party.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Devan M. Desai, J
Somaji Manaji Thakore – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8301 of 2017