In non-commercial disputes, the timeline prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for filing a written statement is directory, and courts retain the inherent discretion to condone delays.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 03.09.2021 whereby defence of the petitioners was struck off for not having filed their written statement despite a period of 120 days having elapsed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that given one opportunity the petitioners would file their written statement and that they are also willing to compensate the respondent by way of costs.

3. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent would contend that despite a huge delay, the petitioners failed to file their written statement and therefore no fault can be found with the order dated 03.09.2021.

4. Heard.

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Desh Raj vs. Balkishan (D) through proposed LR Ms. Rohini [(2020) 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:

“16. Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in its application to commercial disputes - (1) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, in their application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value, stand amended in the manner as specified in the Schedule.

(2) The Commercial Division and Commercial Court shall follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a specified value.

(3) Where any provision of any Rule of the jurisdictional High Court or any amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the State Government is in conflict with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Act shall prevail.”

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 noncommercial 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 timeline 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.”

6. In the present case the suit is for recovery of ₹5,00,000/- as compensation/damages on account of defamation. No doubt the petitioners have been remiss in filing the written statement however, keeping in view the nature of litigation, this Court deems it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioners to file their written statement within 15 days