The discretion to condone delays in filing written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is upheld, particularly in non-commercial disputes, emphasizing the need for valid reasons and absence of prejudice.

JUDGMENT

The challenge in this Original Petition is to Ext.P4 order dated 01.03.2021 in I.A No.1/2020 in O.S No.1366/2017 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, by which the Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs in a suit to reject the written statement filed by the defendant.

2. The plaintiffs are the petitioners. The sole defendant is the respondent.

3. The Original Suit was filed for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and the building by evicting the defendant.

4. The defendant entered appearance on 11.10.2017. On the application of the defendant, on 04.02.2020, the Trial Court granted 15 days time to the defendant to file written statement. The defendant filed the written statement accordingly on 18.02.2020.

The plaintiffs filed an application to reject the written statement. The Trial Court held that the defendant had placed convincing explanation for the reason for the delay in filing the written statement.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the burden is on the defendant to establish the reason for the delay. The learned counsel relied on Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala & Co. [ (2018) 6 SCC 639 ].

6. The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant submitted that the defendant has given sufficient explanation for the delay. The learned counsel relied on Desh Raj v. Balkishan [ (2020) 2 SCC 708 ] in support of her contentions.

7. As per Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, the defendant is obliged to file the written statement within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him. The proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC enables the Court to extend the period upto ninety days from the date of service of summons for sufficient reasons.

8. The Order VIII Rule 1 CPC reads thus:

“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.”

9. In Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (II) v. Union of India [ (2005) 6 SCC 344 ], while interpreting the words “shall not be later than ninety days” the Apex Court held thus:

“21.....There is no restriction in Order 8 Rule 10 that after expiry of ninety days, further time cannot be granted. The court has wide power to “make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit”. Clearly, therefore, the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory. Having said so, we wish to make it clear that the order extending time to file written statement cannot be made in routine. The time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. While extending time, it has to be borne in mind that the legislature has fixed the upper time-limit of 90 days. The discretion of the court to extend the time shall not be so frequently and routinely exercised so as to nullify the period fixed by Order 8 Rule 1."

10. Following the principles declared in Salem Advocate Bar Assn., in Atcom Technologies Ltd., (supra) the Supreme Court observed that the onus is upon the defendant to plead and satisfactorily demonstrate a valid reason for not filing the written statement within the prescribed statutory period. In Desh Raj (supra) in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of the judgment, the supreme Court observed thus:

“12. The judgment of Oku Tech [Oku Tech (P) Ltd. v.Sangeet Agarwal, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6601] relied upon by the learned Single Judge is no doubt good law, as recently upheld by this Court in SCG Contracts (India) (P) Ltd. v.K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd. [SCG Contracts (India) (P) Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd., (2019) 12 SCC 210 : (2020) 1 SCC