Timely amendments to written statements are critical, and courts have limited powers to condone delays without sufficient cause.

JUDGMENT This original petition has been filed by the petitioner / 2^nd defendant in O.S No.3887/2003, for challenging the order passed by the Additional Munsiff Court-I, Thrissur, for having dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, dated

27.10.2025.

2.Heard the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

1^st respondent filed the suit against the petitioner and others seeking a declaration, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, and directions to the trust to act in accordance with its bye-laws. The suit O.S No.3887/2003 was filed in the year 2003. The petitioner duly appeared and filed a written statement on 29.06.2004 itself. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed another suit against the same trust and other defendants in O.S No.1237/2011, seeking similar relief. After completion of the trial and examination of both side witnesses, the petitioner, being defendant No.2 filed an application seeking amendment of the written statement in O.S No. 3887/2003. However, the said application came to be rejected by the trial court

4.Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner also said to be associated with the plaintiff, where the plaintiff sought an injunction against the trust for conducting the function as per the bye-law in O.S No.3887/2003. Though the petitioner appeared and filed a written statement way back in the year 2004 itself, but the same contained only a common denial and without raising any specific contention. However, after a lapse of about seven years from the filing of the suit, and during its pendency, the 2nd defendant (petitioner herein) filed a separate suit in O.S. No. 1237/2011, as he was ousted from the trust without following the provisions of the bye- laws. The O.S. No. 1237/2011, was also taken up together for trial along with O.S. No. 3887/2003, and both matters were stated to have been posted for final hearing.

5.After completion of the trial, the petitioner filed an application seeking amendment of the written statement, which was filed way back on 29.06.2004. As per the amended provisions of CPC under Order VIII Rule 1, which came into effect from 01.07.2002, a written statement is required to be filed within 30 days from the date of service of summons, extendable up to a maximum of 120 days. Beyond this period, the Court has no power to accept a written statement. Even after the commencement of the Commercial Court Act, this 120-day limitation is mandatory, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in various decisions, has upheld that the written statement must be filed within this prescribed period. However, if any reason is assigned and sufficient cause is made out by the defendant for filing a written statement beyond the 120 days, the Court has to consider and condone the delay in filing the written statement.

6.In the present case, the petitioner had already filed his written statement in June 2004. He had also filed another suit against the very same trust in the year 2011, in O.S. No. 1237/2011, wherein he raised various contentions similar to those found in the plaint averments of O.S. No. 3887/2003. But at this stage also, he did not choose to file an application seeking amendment of his written statement in O.S. No. 3887/2003.

7. When the matter was posted for final hearing in October

2025, the petitioner filed the present application seeking amendment of the written statement. It is filed more than a lapse of 21 years and the petitioner has no due diligence in explaining the delay in seeking the amendment. Once the trial is completed,