Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
In some cases, courts have ordered that the period for filing WS should be reckoned from the date the complete copy of the plaint and documents were finally supplied, e.g., ["Manoj Kumar VS Asif Ali Khan - Delhi"] states, the statutory period for filing the written statement is to be reckoned from the said date.
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Shivam Corporation India VS Kalyani India Pvt Ltd. - Delhi"]- ["Devinder Singh VS Yudhvir Singh - Delhi"]- ["YOGRAJSINH LALJIBHAI JADAV PROPRIETOR M/S BRAVO AGROTECH Vs M/S ECO EMISSION XCHANGE PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR DILAWAR KHICHAD - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Beena Goswami VS State Bank of India - Delhi"]- ["Sh. Vikrant Khanna VS Amita Lamba - Delhi"]- ["GANESH Vs VANKETESH & ORS - Delhi"]- ["Ritesh Chauhan VS Arcing Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. - Delhi"]- ["Manoj Kumar VS Asif Ali Khan - Delhi"]- ["Khadi And Village Industries Commission VS Roopika Rastogi - Delhi"]- ["Nioti Chanda VS SPML Infra Limited - Calcutta"]- ["Deepak Arora VS Lal Sons - Delhi"]- ["Alpana Pyne vs Mihir Mohan Pyne - Calcutta"]- ["ANUJ KAPUR, CHUNRI CREATIONS VS AMRIT KAUR - Delhi"]- ["HINDWARE LTD VS. MARVEL CERAMICS AND ORS. - Delhi"]- ["National Insurance Company Ltd. VS National Building Construction India Ltd. - Supreme Court"]- ["Star Paper Mills Ltd. VS Eastern Coalfields Limited - Calcutta"]- ["A. K. Ghosh & Company VS Biman Bose - Calcutta"]
In civil litigation, timing is everything. Imagine receiving a summons with a plaint but no accompanying documents—how does this affect your deadline to file a Written Statement (WS)? The question documents with plaint not supplied, time to file WS is a common concern for defendants facing procedural hurdles under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), particularly Order VIII Rule 1. This post breaks down the rules, court discretion, and practical steps, drawing from key judicial precedents to help you navigate these timelines effectively.
While this information is based on established legal principles, it is for general guidance only and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Under CPC Order VIII Rule 1, a defendant must file the WS within 30 days from the date of service of summons. MOHAMMED YUSUF VS FAIJ MOHAMMAD - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1781 This strict timeline aims to expedite civil suits and curb delays.
Courts may extend this period, but only up to a maximum of 120 days from the service date, and only if the defendant approaches the court within the initial 30 days with valid reasons recorded in writing. MOHAMMED YUSUF VS FAIJ MOHAMMAD - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1781 Beyond 120 days, extensions are rare and require exceptional circumstances.
As noted in one case, 30 days time is sufficient to file written statement, howsoever voluminous the documents may be. Anil Kumar Goel VS Arun Kumar Goel - 2017 Supreme(Del) 2590 This underscores the legislative intent to eliminate protracted litigation.
Order VII Rule 14 requires plaintiffs to supply copies of documents relied upon with the plaint. But what if they don't? Non-supply or late supply does not automatically extend the WS filing deadline. Cec-cici Jv VS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4443Ashok Kumar Kalra VS Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri - 2020 8 Supreme 20
Defendants must act promptly: raise objections or seek extensions within the 30-day window. Mere delay or non-receipt isn't enough; you need to demonstrate sufficient cause to the court. MOHAMMED YUSUF VS FAIJ MOHAMMAD - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1781 For instance, in a case where defendants appeared and sought time thrice claiming records were unavailable, they later objected via application—but only after initial delays, highlighting the need for timely action. Sudhirkumar Krishnalal Sahani VS Nagar Parishad/Nagar Palika/Municipal Council - 2009 Supreme(Bom) 736
Failure to approach the court timely may lead to the suit proceeding ex-parte, with courts potentially deeming admissions under Order VIII Rule 10 or refusing late filings. Sejal Glass Ltd. VS Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1029
The court's power to condone delay is judicious and bounded. Extensions beyond 30 days (up to 120) require:- Application within 30 days.- Recorded reasons, like non-receipt of documents preventing WS preparation.- No routine grants; must show valid cause. MOHAMMED YUSUF VS FAIJ MOHAMMAD - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1781
The discretion to extend time is limited and should be exercised only if the defendant approaches the court within the prescribed period and provides sufficient cause for delay. MOHAMMED YUSUF VS FAIJ MOHAMMAD - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1781
In practice, courts reject pleas if defendants sit idle. For example, despite documents being supplied and time granted, a party choosing not to file a reply led to adverse orders. Chandra Prakash @ Tinku Pandey VS State of M. P. - 2021 Supreme(MP) 527 Similarly, seeking additional documents after chargesheet service prompted time grants, but persistent delays were frowned upon. Rajiv Bhasin VS Centre for Development of Telematics (C-Dot) - 2019 Supreme(Del) 599
Filing WS or additional documents post-120 days without prior leave is generally impermissible, especially in commercial suits. Cec-cici Jv VS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4443Ashok Kumar Kalra VS Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri - 2020 8 Supreme 20
Key cases reinforce these principles:
Recent rulings echo this. In one, the court upheld denying further extension, noting pleas for more time due to voluminous papers were meritless under Article 227 jurisdiction. Anil Kumar Goel VS Arun Kumar Goel - 2017 Supreme(Del) 2590 Another dismissed an amendment application as dilatory tactics, since the defendant delayed despite earlier disclosures. Hawkins Cookers Ltd. VS Citizen Metal Industries (India) - 2007 Supreme(Del) 2816 The amendment application by the Defendant is part of the dilatory tactics being adopted by the Defendant for prolonging and protracting the litigation. Hawkins Cookers Ltd. VS Citizen Metal Industries (India) - 2007 Supreme(Del) 2816
Order VIII Rule 1 is directory, allowing WS acceptance post-90 days in some cases, but courts prioritize adherence. Sudhirkumar Krishnalal Sahani VS Nagar Parishad/Nagar Palika/Municipal Council - 2009 Supreme(Bom) 736
Plaintiffs too should supply documents promptly to avoid complications.
Non-supply of documents with the plaint doesn't pause the WS clock—defendants must proactively seek court intervention within 30 days, with extensions capped at 120 days upon shown cause. MOHAMMED YUSUF VS FAIJ MOHAMMAD - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1781 Delays often backfire, as courts prioritize speedy justice.
Key Takeaways:- WS due in 30 days; extendable to 120 max with timely application. MOHAMMED YUSUF VS FAIJ MOHAMMAD - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1781- Non-supply requires prompt objection, not passive waiting. Cec-cici Jv VS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4443- Judicial discretion is limited—act fast or risk procedural losses.
Stay compliant with CPC timelines to safeguard your defense. For tailored advice, reach out to a legal professional. This overview draws from precedents like those in MOHAMMED YUSUF VS FAIJ MOHAMMAD - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1781, Cec-cici Jv VS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4443, Ashok Kumar Kalra VS Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri - 2020 8 Supreme 20, Sejal Glass Ltd. VS Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1029, and others for comprehensive insight.
References:1. MOHAMMED YUSUF VS FAIJ MOHAMMAD - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1781 – WS timelines and extensions.2. Cec-cici Jv VS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4443 – Non-supply effects.3. Ashok Kumar Kalra VS Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri - 2020 8 Supreme 20 – Condonation limits.4. Sejal Glass Ltd. VS Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1029 – Procedural consequences.5. MANGULU PIRAI VS PRAFULLA KUMAR SINGH - 1987 0 Supreme(Ori) 103, Arun Jaitley VS Arvind Kejriwal - Current Civil Cases (2016), Anil Kumar Goel VS Arun Kumar Goel - 2017 Supreme(Del) 2590, Sudhirkumar Krishnalal Sahani VS Nagar Parishad/Nagar Palika/Municipal Council - 2009 Supreme(Bom) 736, Hawkins Cookers Ltd. VS Citizen Metal Industries (India) - 2007 Supreme(Del) 2816, Chandra Prakash @ Tinku Pandey VS State of M. P. - 2021 Supreme(MP) 527, Rajiv Bhasin VS Centre for Development of Telematics (C-Dot) - 2019 Supreme(Del) 599.
#CPC #WrittenStatement #LegalTimelines
It was only on 06.07.2022, the petitioner/plaintiff supplied a copy of the plaint to the defendants. Learned counsel submits that time was again sought by the respondents/defendant on 13.09.2022 to file the written statement. ... would not provide the respondents/defendants reasons for the time to be reckoned from 06.07.2022. ... Learned Trial Court has mis-directed itself in reckoning the date of supply of copy of summons of the plaint as on 06.07.2022, overlooking t....
Tripathi, learned counsel submits that the copy of the plaint along with the documents were supplied on 04.03.2022 to the previous counsel, since the counsel had not appeared and was negligent, the petitioner/defendant did not come to know about the said service of the copies of the amended plaint and ... Tripathi, learned counsel further submits that it was for the first time on 16.09.2022 that the petitioner/defendant No. 2 was supplied with the co....
Since legible copies of the documents along with the plaint, had not been supplied to the petitioner-defendant, a request in this regard was made to the Court, which granted time to the respondent- plaintiff for the said purpose. ... Shivraj Puri & Anr, [CS(COMM) No.1495 of 2016 decided on 14.12.2017], the Delhi High Court was seized of a similar issue, where documents had not been supplied in time. ... The Delhi High Court held tha....
He states that since a copy of the plaint and documents were not provided by the counsel for the Respondent, the Petitioner was unable to file his written statement within the time granted by the Trial Court on 08.06.2023 and in these circumstances, the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 13.07.2023 ... He states that since the Petitioner herein was not served with a copy of the plaint and the documents; therefore, the counsel for the Petitioner co....
/appellants must file along with the plaint or for which they have been granted an extension of time to file the same. ... However, the time to file written statement would not stop merely because the defendants are of the opinion that the documents filed are not relevant or not in terms of liberty obtained from the Court. ... On 11.03.2022, the plaintiffs/appellants sought further time to #HL_STA....
Further, it is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that nothing prevented the respondents from inspecting the judicial record as regards the plaint and documents so that they could file Written Statement in time. 4. ... It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that although petitioner/plaintiff had supplied complete paperbook of suit well within time, the respondents failed to file Written Statement within time prescribed by law. .......
copies of the plaint and documents were not received by the petitioner. ... There is nothing on record to show that the plaint along with the documents was indeed supplied to the petitioner/ defendant anytime before 17.05.2022. 25. Though, the submission of Mr. ... While the matter was pending, it was on 17.05.2022 that the petitioner sought copy of the plaint along with the documents. 8. ... Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has otherwis....
It is made clear that if the Petitioner fails to avail this opportunity within the time granted by this Court and pay the costs, the right of the Petitioner to file the written statement shall stand closed, without any further extension. ... Subject to the Petitioner providing the proof of the payment of costs, the written statement, the statement of truth, the affidavit of admission-denial of documents filed with the plaint and documents of the defendants will be taken on record, if filed within one (1....
Even otherwise, it is open to a party not to file a written statement contesting the allegations in the plaint and nonetheless seek to admit or deny the documents filed with the plaint. ... In case, no written statement is filed within the extended time also, the Registrar may pass orders for closing the right to file the written statement. ... 7. Affidavit of admission/denial of documents, even if replication not filed. ... Having ....
As per the averments made in the plaint that on 24th August, 2017, the defendant has evinced an intention not to honour its obligation and thus there is no hurry to file the suit as there was enough time with the plaintiff to file the suit and question of limitation does not arise. ... However, at the same time, the requirement of establishing the reasonable cause for non disclosure of the documents along with the plaint shall #HL_S....
However, despite various opportunities, he chose not to file reply, therefore, the impugned order was passed. It appears that during proceedings on 8.1.2021, the petitioner was represented through his counsel. The documents were supplied to him and he sought time to file the reply. Thereupon, the matter was fixed for reply on 15.1.2021.
7. Mr. K.K. Rai, learned senior counsel for the respondents who appeared on advance notice submits that after the suspension order dated 12.04.2019, the chargesheet has been issued to the petitioner on 26.04.2019 and served on 29.04.2019 and he was asked to file reply to the same. But the petitioner sought time to file reply and also sought additional documents to be supplied to him.
This is quite evident from the fact that the counsel for the petitioner, being pressed to the wall, is now ready to prepare the written statement within one week only. Moreover, 30 days time is sufficient to file written statement, howsoever voluminous the documents may be. This Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to inquire, whether the order impugned is perverse and in the facts aforesaid, the order cannot be said to be perverse. Similarly, the plea of complete paper book having not been furnished is also not borne out fro....
Defendants had appeared in the suit on 06.06.2006 and had sought time thrice for filing the written statement on the ground that record and documents were not available. Defendants contended that without that it cannot file Written Statement. For the first time defendants raised an objection by application dated 19.07.2006 that the documents required to be supplied with the summons and copy of plaint are not supplied.
The amendment application by the Defendant is part of the dilatory tactics being adopted by the Defendant for prolonging and protracting the litigation. Thereafter, Defendant moved an application for rejection of the plaint which was also dismissed. The Defendant was given time for filing WS in response to the amended plaint of the Plaintiff but Defendant did not file amended WS. The Defendant has now come up with the present application.
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
