A. Introduction and the Provisions
Pleading comprising of a plaint and a written statement constitutes a crucial part of a civil suit. Under Rule 1 of Order VI of the Civil Procedure Code (‘CPC'), a plaint is a statement of claim filed by the plaintiff whereas a written statement is a statement of defence filed by the Defendant before the court.
According to Rule 1 of Order V, when a suit is duly instituted, a summon may be issued to the defendant to appear before the Court and submit written statement. Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC mandates the written statement must be filed within 30 days from the date of service of summons. This time limit may be extended further for 90 more days at the discretion of the court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing. The Supreme Court of India (SCI) and various High Courts (HCs) have time and again examined whether these time lines are absolute or discretionary. Recently, the Madras High Court has observed that the extension of time limit to file a written statement cannot be granted frequently and routinely so as to make these timelines ineffective. [Ramesh Flowers Private Limited v. Sumit Srimal, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 4785 (decided on 13.09.2024)] This article provides a brief overview of the timelines prescribed by the law and how the courts have looked at the provisions, and what are the prerequisites for the defendant to file a written statement belatedly have been discussed.
B. Judicial Approach (Directory or Mandatory)
The Supreme Court has examined the mandatory v. directory nature of Order VIII Rule 1 in multiple judgments:
- Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. UOI, (2005) 6 SCC 344: It was held that despite the word “shall” used in the rule, the upper limit of 90 days is directory. The SCI however cautioned that the order extending time to file written statement cannot be made in routine and that time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases.
- Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480: It was observed that the objective behind the limitation is to make the procedure and hearing of the matter in a time efficient manner and not to absolutely dismiss it. The nature of the provision is directory and not mandatory. Thus, the power of the court to provide an extension to the scheduled time for filing the statement is not completely taken away. Further the court must spell out that a departure from the time schedule prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC was being allowed to be made because the circumstances were exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and such extension was required in the interest of justice, and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended.A prayer seeking time beyond 90 days for filing the written statement ought to be made in writing.
- R.N. Jadi and Brother v. Subhaschandra, (2007) 4 CTC 326: The Court while invoking the maxim of equity, namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of court shall prejudice no man), emphasized that all the rules of procedures are handmaid of justice and that technical adherence to the rules should not take away the valuable right of the defendant to file written statement. Holding so, the SCI relying on Kailash v. Nanhku, held that Order VIII Rule 1, as amended by the 2002 CPC Amendment, specifying a time limit was directory and not mandatory.
- However, it was held in Athiappa Gounder v. Athiappa Pandaram, (1967) 1 Mad LJ 392 (FB) that the actus curiae principle applies only in individual cases to a party who has done all he should do under the statute and is prejudiced solely by the delay or mistake of the court. If he is unable to do so, he must offer a proper explanation and seek condonation.
- Atcom Technologies Limited v. Y.A. Chunawala and Company (2018) 6 SCC 639, it was held that the onus upon the defendant is of a higher degree to plead and satisfactorily demonstrate a valid reason for not filing the written statement within thirty days.
- Desh Raj v. Balkishan (D) through Proposed LR, Ms. Rohini, (2020) 1 CTC 586, it was held that although the unamended Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory but it cannot be interpreted to bestow a free hand to on any litigant or lawyer to file written statement at their own sweet will and/or to prolong the lis. Delays must be due to factors beyond the control of the defendant and supported by proactive diligence. The legislative objective behind prescription of timelines under CPC must be given due weightage so that the disputes are resolved in a timebound manner.
C. Impact the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 introduced stricter timelines for commercial disputes of a specified value:
- Order VIII Rule 1 in its application to a commercial dispute of a specified value as substituted by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides that the defaulting defendant forfeits the right to file a written statement, and the court shall not be allowed to take the delayed written statement to be taken on record. Order VIII, Rule 1's substituted proviso provides clear consequences of a bar on taking the written statement on record, while the proviso that applies to all suits (excluding those covered by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015) provides no such consequence.
- Order VIII Rule 10 as amended by the the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and its later 2018 Amendment stipulate that in matters governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, “…no Court shall make an order to extend the time provided under Rule 1 of this Order [VIII] for filing of the written statement”.
D. Key SCI Decisions on Commercial Disputes
The SCI in SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited, (2019) 12 SCC 210 respected the statute's clear time limit of 120 days from the service of summons to file a written statement in suits governed by the 2015 Act and closed the doors for any kind of relaxation of timeline by judicial interpretation
Subsequently, the similar observation was reiterated in the case of Desh Raj v. Balkishan, 2020 SCC Online SC 49, wherein clarification was provided that the time schedule for filing Written Statement under the provision is only applicable in commercial suit whereas such is not in non-commercial suit, wherein it shall only act as a directory provision.
The similar view was taken in subsequent decisions in Bharat Kalra v. Raj Kishan Chabra, Civil Appeal No. 3788 of 2022 and Shoraj Singh v. Charan Singh, Civil Appeal No. 6304 of 2021.
E. Procedure for Seeking Condonation of Delay
In Ramesh Flowers Private Limited v. Sumit Srimal, the Madras High Court, following the decision in Kailash v. Nanhku, held that a written statement filed beyond 30 days requires a formal application for condonation of delay When the court is expected to record reasons as envisaged under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, it is obvious that there must be an application for condonation in writing with proper explanation for the delay. The court ought not to on its own extend time for filing the written statement while granting adjournments. Doing so would be contrary to Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC.
F. Conclusion
From the discussion above, it is clear that in ordinary civil suits/non-commercial suits, the time limit to file a written statement in a suit within 90 days from service of summons is directory and not mandatory. Courts can condone delays, but only in exceptional cases and with recorded reasons. And court should impose costs where appropriate to deter undue delays.
Whereas, in case of commercial disputes of specified value governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the time limit to file a written statement cannot be extended in any circumstances. Defendants forfeit their right to file a Written Statement if they fail to meet the deadline.
The courts must strike a balance between procedural discipline and ensuring justice, ensuring that delays do not become a tool for frustrating the course of justice.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
