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…!
Time Limit for Filing Written Statement - The statutory upper limit of 90 days under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is considered directory, not mandatory, allowing for judicial discretion to extend the period in exceptional cases where justified by sufficient cause Amna Khatoon VS Bibi Madina - Jharkhand, OM PRAKASH Vs SHAMSHER - Delhi, Venkateshwara Financer, Rep. by its Owner, V. Varadararajan VS Sargunammal - Madras.
Power to Extend Beyond 90 Days - Courts may extend the time beyond 90 days only in exceptional circumstances with proper reasons and recorded justification. The extension is not automatic; it requires satisfaction of the court that there are valid grounds. The Supreme Court in Kailash vs Nankhu (2005) emphasized that such extensions should be granted cautiously and not routinelyAmna Khatoon VS Bibi Madina - Jharkhand, OM PRAKASH Vs SHAMSHER - Delhi, Mohammad Akhlakh VS Liyakat - Punjab and Haryana.
Limitations on Extension Period - While some sources suggest that extension beyond 90 days is not automatic and should be granted only with sufficient cause, others clarify that initially the power to extend is limited to 30 days but can theoretically be extended further if justifiedKetan Dwivedi VS Ashok Pratap Singh - Delhi, SRI VENKATESHWARA FINANCIER vs SARGUNAMMAL - Madras, PUSHPA DEVI AND ANR vs PURNI DEVI - Himachal Pradesh.
Judicial Discretion and Conditions - The courts have discretion to extend the period for filing written statements beyond 90 days but must record reasons and ensure no abuse of power. Extensions are to be granted sparingly and only in exceptional cases where grave injustice would result otherwise Amna Khatoon VS Bibi Madina - Jharkhand, NIZAM ALI vs KRISHNA KUMAR - Chhattisgarh.
Legal Precedents and Clarifications - Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently held that extension beyond 90 days is not automatic and requires sufficient justification. The power is circumscribed, and routine extensions are discouraged. The judicial attitude is to protect the interests of the opposing party while upholding procedural limitsAmna Khatoon VS Bibi Madina - Jharkhand, SRI VENKATESHWARA FINANCIER vs SARGUNAMMAL - Madras, Archana Maji VS Bhim Prasad Manna - Calcutta.
The general consensus across the sources is that Section 148 CPC does not automatically permit courts to extend the period for filing written statements beyond 90 days. While initially, the power to extend is limited to 30 days, judicial discretion allows for further extensiononly in exceptional cases with proper reasons and recorded justification. The extension beyond 90 days is not a routine matter and must be exercised cautiously, ensuring no injustice occurs. Therefore, Time Limit can be extended beyond 90 daysbut only under exceptional circumstances and with clear justification as per judicial precedents.
In civil litigation, timely filing of a written statement (WS) is crucial to prevent procedural defaults and ensure swift justice. But what happens when a defendant misses the deadline? A common query arises: Can time limit be extended beyond 90 days for filing WS by exercising Section 148 CPC? This question often puzzles litigants facing tight timelines under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). While the law sets strict limits, judicial interpretations offer some flexibility—though not without caveats.
This post explores the legal framework, Supreme Court rulings, and practical insights to help you understand when and how extensions might be granted. Note: This is general information based on precedents and should not be considered specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The CPC provides clear timelines for defendants to respond to summons:
These rules aim to curb delays, aligning with the Commercial Courts Act's emphasis on speedy trials. However, are these limits ironclad?
The Supreme Court has clarified that Order 8 Rule 1's 90-day cap is directory, not mandatory. Courts retain discretion to extend beyond 90 days in exceptional circumstances, provided they record sufficient reasons. This stems from the landmark case Kailash vs Nanhku, where it was held:
the extension of time beyond 90 days was not automatic and that the court, for reasons to be recorded, had to be satisfied that there was sufficient justification for departing from the time-limit fixed by the Code and the power inhering in the court in terms of Section 148 NIZAM ALI vs KRISHNA KUMAR - ChhattisgarhNizam Ali S/o Sunhar Ali VS Krishna Kumar S/o Ramkhilawan - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 453 - 2022 0 Supreme(Chh) 453
Thus, while extensions are possible, they aren't routine. The provision acts as a self-contained code, limiting Section 148's broader application. MUNESHRA DEVI VS CHANDRAWATI DEVI @ CHANARA DEVI - AllahabadSuresh Yadav, son of Late Bachu Yadav VS Munna Devi, wife of Late Bachu Yadav - Jharkhand
Extensions beyond 90 days are permissible only in exceptional cases where:- Valid reasons justify the delay, such as unavoidable circumstances (e.g., medical emergencies, complex facts requiring investigation).- The court is satisfied no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff.- Reasons are recorded in writing to prevent abuse.
For instance:- In Kailash vs Nanhku (2005), the Supreme Court emphasized cautious exercise of discretion: Extensions beyond the 90-day limit can be granted, but only in exceptional cases where the court is satisfied that there are valid reasons for the delay. Amna Khatoon VS Bibi Madina - JharkhandMOHAMMED YUSUF VS FAIJ MOHAMMAD - Supreme Court- High Courts echo this: Time Limit for Filing Written Statement - The statutory upper limit of 90 days under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is considered directory, not mandatory, allowing for judicial discretion to extend the period in exceptional cases where justified by sufficient cause. Amna Khatoon VS Bibi Madina - Jharkhand
Other precedents reinforce:
Nanhku it was stated that the extension of time beyond 90 days was not automatic and that the court, for reasons to be recorded, had to be satisfied that there was sufficient justification... Nizam Ali S/o Sunhar Ali VS Krishna Kumar S/o Ramkhilawan - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 453 - 2022 0 Supreme(Chh) 453
Section 148 isn't a blanket permission:- Traditionally limited to 30 days: Even assuming that Section 148 CPC has any application, enlargement of time could not be granted for more than 30 days, in view of the time-limit fixed in Section 148 itself. Rajesh Himathlal Ajmera VS Chadalavada Infratech Limited - 2018 Supreme(AP) 361 - 2018 0 Supreme(AP) 361- No routine extensions: Courts must avoid undermining legislative intent against delays. R. N. Jadi & Brothers VS Subhashchandra - Supreme CourtSURESH KUMAR VS RAJPAL THAKUR - Himachal Pradesh- Specific over general: Order 8 Rule 1 prevails over Section 148. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the availability of the specific provision for filing written statement, general provisions contained under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not prevail. MUNESHRA DEVI VS CHANDRAWATI DEVI @ CHANARA DEVI - Allahabad- Some views strictly limit: I am of the opinion that the Court cannot extend the time to file written statement beyond 90 days... even provisions of Section 148 of the CPC cannot be availed for extending the time. ANURADHA DUBEY VS PRASEN @ LAXMIKANT DUBEY - 2005 Supreme(Chh) 30 - 2005 0 Supreme(Chh) 30
In practice, applications under Section 148 post-90 days face scrutiny, as seen in cases like SRI VENKATESHWARA FINANCIER vs SARGUNAMMAL - Madras, where extensions were considered on merits but not guaranteed.
If seeking extension:1. File promptly with an affidavit detailing compelling reasons (e.g., evidence of delay cause).2. Demonstrate no prejudice to the opposite party.3. Reference precedents like Kailash to bolster your plea.4. Avoid routine pleas; courts frown on casual delays.
Yes, time limits can be extended beyond 90 days for filing WS using Section 148 CPC—but only in exceptional circumstances with sufficient justification and recorded reasons. The 90-day limit is directory, granting courts discretion, yet this power is exercised cautiously to uphold expeditious justice. Amna Khatoon VS Bibi Madina - JharkhandMOHAMMED YUSUF VS FAIJ MOHAMMAD - Supreme Court
Key Takeaways:- 30 + 90 days is the norm; beyond requires exceptional proof.- Record reasons—essential for approval.- Not automatic: Routine extensions risk rejection. Nizam Ali S/o Sunhar Ali VS Krishna Kumar S/o Ramkhilawan - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 453 - 2022 0 Supreme(Chh) 453- Recommendation: Act swiftly, document delays meticulously, and seek professional guidance.
References:- Amna Khatoon VS Bibi Madina - JharkhandNational Bank Ltd. VS Dulal Kanti Chowdhury - CalcuttaMOHAMMED YUSUF VS FAIJ MOHAMMAD - Supreme CourtR. N. Jadi & Brothers VS Subhashchandra - Supreme CourtSURESH KUMAR VS RAJPAL THAKUR - Himachal PradeshMUNESHRA DEVI VS CHANDRAWATI DEVI @ CHANARA DEVI - AllahabadSuresh Yadav, son of Late Bachu Yadav VS Munna Devi, wife of Late Bachu Yadav - JharkhandNIZAM ALI vs KRISHNA KUMAR - ChhattisgarhNizam Ali S/o Sunhar Ali VS Krishna Kumar S/o Ramkhilawan - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 453 - 2022 0 Supreme(Chh) 453Rajesh Himathlal Ajmera VS Chadalavada Infratech Limited - 2018 Supreme(AP) 361 - 2018 0 Supreme(AP) 361ANURADHA DUBEY VS PRASEN @ LAXMIKANT DUBEY - 2005 Supreme(Chh) 30 - 2005 0 Supreme(Chh) 30
Stay informed on CPC updates to navigate litigation effectively. For tailored advice, contact a legal expert.
#CPC #WrittenStatement #LegalExtension
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 8 Rule1 – Section 148 – Quashing the order – Power or jurisdiction – ... Admittedly, there was no application filed by the defendant no. 6 under Section 148 CPC for enlargement of time to file the written statement within the statutory period of thirty days as prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC or extended#....
cannot be extended beyond 90 days under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC. ... 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 Hon’ble Court held that the ....
Extension of Time - Civil Revision Petition - Section 148 of CPC, Section 149 of CPC - 2001 (3) Law weekly 254, 2003 (3) MLJ 770 ... Lachhman Singh & others - CDJ 2006 MHC 1278, CDJ 2014 MHC 6722 - The court discussed the application of Section 148 and Section 149 ... Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the application of Section 148 and Section 149 of CPC and cited relevant case laws ....
CPC - Timelines under Order 8 Rule 1 - Section 148 of CPC - R.N.Jadi and Brothers and Ors. vs. ... Learned counsel submits that being anxious of such delays being caused, the Supreme Court had directed that the power of extension of time granted to the Court under Section 148 of the CPC was curtailed by the outer limit of 30 days from the date original....
of Section 148 of the Code. ... Nankhu and others (supra) it was stated that the extension of time beyond 90 days was not automatic and that the court, for reasons to be recorded, had to be satisfied that there was sufficient justification for departing from the time limit fixed by the Code and the power inhering in the court in terms ... It is, theref....
148 of CPC, for extension of time. ... limit even after the expiry of time as per Section 149 of CPC, in another the pass any order for extension of time beyond 06.06.2018. ... Hence, the application filed under Section 148 of CPC was heard on merits p sty....
148 CPC the Court cannot enlarge or extend the time beyond 30 days. ... Even under Section 148 of CPC Court could not enlarge the time beyond 30 days. In view of the discussion supra, the application under Section 148 of CPC is dismissed with cos....
Delay Condonation - Civil Procedure Code - Order VII Rule 11(d), Section 148 - The court discussed the provisions ... of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 148, and their applicability in condoning the delay in presenting ... The court also clarified that no other court is vested with the jurisdiction to enlarge the time limit under Section 148 of the Code ... T....
Nanhku it was stated that the extension of time beyond 90 days was not automatic and that the court, for reasons to be recorded, had to be satisfied that there was sufÏcient justification for departing from the time- limit fixed by the Code and the power inhering in the court in terms of Section 148 ... It is, therefore, necessary to emphasise that the....
Nanhku it was stated that the extension of time beyond 90 days was not automatic and that the court, for reasons to be recorded, had to be satisfied that there was sufficient justification for departing from the time-limit fixed by the Code and the power inhering in the court in terms of Section 148 ... Reverting back to the facts of the present case, ....
Even assuming that Section 148 CPC has any application, enlargement of time could not be granted for more than 30 days, in view of the time-limit fixed in Section 148 itself. At any rate, it is impermissible to condone the delay of 186 days in representing the returned Company Petition, as the petitions in the present Company Petitions, as the same would be contrary to the procedure prescribed. That apart, adopting such course is contrary to the procedure and limitation presc....
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the availability of the specific provision for filing written statement, general provisions contained under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not prevail. It may be noticed that under Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C. written statement has to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of summons and on the discretion of the Court, the time can be extended by the Court but not later than 90 days wher....
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the availability of the specific provision for filing written statement, general provisions contained under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not prevail. It may be noticed that under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. written statement has to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of summons and on the discretion of the court, the time can be extended by the court but not later than 90 days whereas....
The time-limit for exercising the option shall not be extended further. (c) Those employees who have been recruited on or after 1st October 19f\2 shall not have any option, but they shall be governed by the Pension and Death-cum-Retirement-Gratuity Scheme sanctioned under this Resolution, provided they are otherwise eligible.
1 am of the opinion that the Court cannot extend the time to file written statement beyond 90 days. Similarly powers under Order 8 Rule 9 and Section 151 of the CPC cannot be exercised for extending the time beyond 90 days to file written statement, therefore. Similar view has been taken by the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Dr. Nanda Agrawal (Supra) that time cannot be extended beyond 90 days and even provisions of Section 148 of the CPC cannot be availed for extending the ti....
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
