Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Filing of a commission application filed by the defendant before the filing of a written statement is permissible under certain conditions, especially when courts allow extensions or condonation of delays. Courts have recognized that delay in filing written statements can be condoned if proper cause is shown, and applications for extension or condonation can be filed prior to or along with the written statement ["VILASINIYAMMA vs BIJUKUMAR - Kerala"] ["INDIND00000021062"].
Legal provisions and court practices permit defendants to file applications under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for extension of time or condonation of delay, even after the prescribed period of 30 days has expired. Such applications, if allowed, effectively permit the filing of the written statement at a later date ["VILASINIYAMMA vs BIJUKUMAR - Kerala"] ["INDIND00000021062"].
Main points from case law and rules:
Condonation of delay is a key factor; if the defendant demonstrates sufficient cause, courts are inclined to accept belated written statements, whether filed before or after filing applications like commission applications ["VILASINIYAMMA vs BIJUKUMAR - Kerala"] ["INDIND00000021062"].
Analysis and conclusion:
References:- ["VILASINIYAMMA vs BIJUKUMAR - Kerala"]: Courts recognize that delay in filing written statements can be condoned and that filing a commission application does not bar subsequent filing of the written statement.- ["INDIND00000021062"]: Filing of written statements can occur after applications for extension or condonation, and courts have allowed such filings if proper cause is shown.- ["HINDWARE LTD VS. MARVEL CERAMICS AND ORS. - Delhi"]: Legal provisions and case law support the filing of written statements after the commission application, provided the defendant seeks condonation or extension.
In civil litigation under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), timing is everything. Defendants often wonder: CAN A COMMISSION APPLICATION FILED BY DEFENDANT BE ALLOWED BEFORE FILING OF WRITTEN STATEMENT? This question arises frequently in suits where evidence collection via commission (under Order 26 CPC) is crucial early on. While commissions are typically sought during evidence stages, early applications can occur. However, procedural rules tie them closely to pleadings. This post breaks down the legal position, drawing from key cases and provisions.
Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your case.
The CPC outlines strict timelines for pleadings, primarily under Order 8 for written statements and Order 26 for commissions (e.g., local investigations, examinations).
Generally, applications before written statement are permissible if they don't introduce new causes of action post-pleadings. For instance, rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 can precede written statement: Therefore, the defendant is entitled to file the application for rejection before filing his written statement. Gullu G. Talreja, S/o. Geleram Talreja vs Sanjay Sisodia, S/o. Hastimal Sisodia - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 440613
Commissions, being evidentiary, may be allowed early if urgency exists, but courts scrutinize to prevent dilatory tactics.
The landmark case Manoj Agrawal VS Geeta Singhal - 2017 0 Supreme(MP) 414 primarily addresses post-written statement applications but sets principles applicable inversely.
Implication for Pre-Written Statement Commissions: Since commissions often relate to existing facts in plaint, filing before written statement aligns with this—cause of action pre-exists summons. Courts may allow if it aids defense preparation without prejudice. However, if commission seeks facts post-summons but pre-written statement, discretion applies via Section 151 (inherent powers).
Supporting precedents:- G. K. Khosla v. M. S. Khosla, AIR 1970 SC 1592: Counter-claims must be available at written statement filing.- S. K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1954 SC 265: Pleadings confined to existing facts.
Yes, typically permissible, but subject to conditions:
Contrast with post-written statement: Manoj Agrawal VS Geeta Singhal - 2017 0 Supreme(MP) 414 bars new facts. Pre-written statement avoids this hurdle.
From other rulings:- Applications like affidavit of admission/denial can follow even if written statement delayed, prioritizing defense rights. Khadi And Village Industries Commission VS Roopika Rastogi - 2023 Supreme(Del) 1143: Court permitted despite no written statement, as summons didn't specify it.- Extensions for written statement liberally granted if sufficient cause. Axis Bank Limited VS Treenath Vanijya Private Limited - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1043: Relied on Kailash v. Nanhku (2005) 4 SCC 480.
If commission needs pleading support:- Joint Written Statements: Amendments require all defendants' consent. Chanda Kedia VS Dwarika Prasad Kedia - 2024 Supreme(All) 1230: An amendment to a joint written statement cannot be made by one defendant without the consent of all other defendants who signed it.- Delay Condonation: Courts condone under Order 8 Rule 9 if no prejudice. Bhambhani Shipping Ltd. vs Halani Star - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 1640: Allowed 684-day delay in additional written statement.- Commercial Suits: Strict—formal application needed beyond 30 days, max 120. Informal requests fail. VEELINE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED vs KHETAWAT PROPERTIES LIMITED - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 4774
Rejection Applications: Freely filed pre-written statement. Kolli Venkata Mohan Rao VS J. M. Patricia - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 4259: such application can be filed by the defendant even before filing the written statement or at any time thereafter.
| Stage | Commission Feasibility | Key Rule/Case ||-------|------------------------|---------------|| Pre-Written Statement | Generally allowed if urgent/related | Order 26; Gullu G. Talreja, S/o. Geleram Talreja vs Sanjay Sisodia, S/o. Hastimal Sisodia - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 440613 || With Written Statement | Preferred; include prayer | Order 8 Rule 6A; Manoj Agrawal VS Geeta Singhal - 2017 0 Supreme(MP) 414 || Post-Written Statement | Rare; needs amendment | Order 6 Rule 17 |
A defendant can generally file a commission application before the written statement under CPC, as it precedes pleading closure and aligns with pre-existing causes. However, courts exercise discretion to ensure fairness, drawing from cases like Manoj Agrawal VS Geeta Singhal - 2017 0 Supreme(MP) 414, which stress timing for new claims.
Key Takeaways:- Cause of action must typically exist at summons stage.- Seek leave for extensions/amendments early.- Prioritize procedural compliance to avoid forfeiture. VEELINE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED vs KHETAWAT PROPERTIES LIMITED - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 4774
For tailored advice, engage a civil lawyer. Stay updated on CPC amendments for efficient litigation.
Sources:Manoj Agrawal VS Geeta Singhal - 2017 0 Supreme(MP) 414, Khadi And Village Industries Commission VS Roopika Rastogi - 2023 Supreme(Del) 1143, Chanda Kedia VS Dwarika Prasad Kedia - 2024 Supreme(All) 1230, Axis Bank Limited VS Treenath Vanijya Private Limited - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1043, Gullu G. Talreja, S/o. Geleram Talreja vs Sanjay Sisodia, S/o. Hastimal Sisodia - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 440613, VEELINE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED vs KHETAWAT PROPERTIES LIMITED - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 4774, Bhambhani Shipping Ltd. vs Halani Star - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 1640, Hemant Kanoria VS KPMG Assurance & Consulting Services LLP - 2024 Supreme(Cal) 1111, Quadra Strat Trade Services Ltd. VS Mahinder Kumar Madan - 2024 Supreme(Del) 188, Kolli Venkata Mohan Rao VS J. M. Patricia - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 4259.
#CPCIndia, #CivilLitigation, #LegalGuide
She submits that the reply to the application under Order I Rule 10, CPC, 1908 impleading the defendant no.3 as a party, was filed within time, however the written statement was filed on 29.07.2025. ... The written statement was filed to be filed within 30 days of such service, which admittedly was not done. ... This is a Chamber Appeal filed on behalf of defendant no.3 seeking s....
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that a mistake had occurred on the part of the counsel to point out the pendency of the application for commission and the counsel was under the impression that the written statement need be filed only after a commission report is filed. ... On 13.04.2017 the petitioner was set exparte since no written statement had been filed. On 31.07.2017 an exparte decree was passed. Th....
Extension of time for filing written statement. ... for appearance and for filing written statement. ... Upon filing of process fee, issue summons to the Defendant by all permissible modes. Summons shall state that the written statement shall be filed by the Defendant within 30 days from the date of receipt of summons. ... The words "is for appearance and for filing#HL_....
There may be various other instances where a serious anomaly may be created by one defendant filing an amendment application leading to jeopardizing the rights and interests of other defendants, who join in filing a written statement. ... Thus, without a joint application for amendment or without consent of the defendant No. 2 with regard to the application for amendment, the amendment application seeking amendment....
The defendant has filed the present application being GA 3 of 2023 praying for extension of time to file written statement in CS No. 144 of 2014. 2. ... The parties were having claim and counter claim, the suit which the defendant has filed, the plaintiff has already filed the written statement in the suit but in the present suit, the defendant has not filed the written....
Therefore, the defendant is entitled to file the application for rejection before filing his written statement. In case the application is rejected, the defendant is entitled to file his written statement thereafter (see Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra²). ... Perusal of the averments found in the affidavit which is filed in support of the application by defendant No.1 to cond....
filing the written statement and no formal application is required to be filed or to be on board. ... There is no provision for acceptance of the written statement already filed by the defendant and filing of the written statement in the department pursuant to the leave granted by the Court tantamount to the written statement having been taken ....
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 ... Gandhi had sought time to file an application and this Court had directed filing of an appropriate applicati....
No. 2 of 2024 filed by defendant no.6 for condoning delay of 96 days in filing written statement. ... No. 3 of 2024 filed by defendant no.9 for condoning delay of 94 days in filing written statement. ... No. 4 of 2024 filed by defendant no.12 for condoning delay of 94 days in filing written statement. ... No. 5 of 2024 #HL_STA....
The defendant had submitted before this Court that the Written Statement had already been filed on 10.01.2020 and vide Order dated 17.01.2020, the application for condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement was allowed. 13. ... It is submitted in the application that the Written Statement filed by the defendant on 10.01.2020, was retur....
There is no limitation applicable in filing of an application under the said rule. So far as the judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner in the case of K. Venkateswara Rao and another vs. Bekkam Narsimha Reddy and others, AIR 1969 SC 872, wherein the Supreme Court has held in para-14: ‘in our opinion however the Limitation Act cannot apply to proceedings like an election petition inasmuch as the Representation of the People Act is a complete and self-contained code which does not admit of the introduction of the principles or the provisions of law contained in the Indian....
Therefore, such exercise of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should be done by the trial Court with utmost care and caution, since the right of a party to have a full- fledged trial cannot be denied at the threshold by rejecting the plaint based on the averments contained in the application alone, unless the grounds raised in such application are also justified through a plain reading of the plaint itself. It is needless to say that rejection of the plaint is an extreme step in a suit proceedings, since such rejection amounts to dismissal of the suit even before consider....
It is also to be noted that such application can be filed by the defendant even before filing the written statement or at any time thereafter. It is needless to say that rejection of the plaint is an extreme step in a suit proceedings, since such rejection amounts to dismissal of the suit even before considering the claim of the plaintiff by conducting trial. Therefore, such exercise of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should be done by the trial Court with utmost care and caution, since the right of a party to have a full-fledged trial cannot be denied....
It is needless to say that rejection of the plaint is an extreme step in a suit proceedings, since such rejection amounts to dismissal of the suit even before considering the claim of the plaintiff by conducting trial. Therefore, such exercise of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should be done by the trial Court with utmost care and caution, since the right of a party to have a full-fledged trial cannot be denied at the threshold by rejecting the plaint based on the averments contained in the application alone, unless the grounds raised in such application are also justi....
However, on the first hearing of the case, the defendant filed written statement and the court ordered the same to be kept on record. The court ultimately rejected the application for further time and ordered that defendant shall be precluded from filing any written statement but even in absence of written statement, defendant shall be allowed to participate in the hearing of the case. 5. In the case of "Bindeshari Kamkar Case (Supra) the defendant appeared pursuant to service of summons but inspite of several adjournments granted to the defendant for filing written stateme....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
