Smt. C. Rajya Lakshmi vs Sri Thoka Venkateshwarlu
- Court
- High Court for the State of Telangana
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA,
HYDERABAD
*
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1107 of 2025
CNR No: HBHC010185552025 )
Between:
Smt.C.Rajya Lakshmi …. Petitioners.
And
Sri Thoka Venkateswarlu and
Four others …. Respondents.
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 06.11.2026
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
____________________________
GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
2
* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1107 of 2025
HBHC010185552025
(CNR No: )
%Dated : 06.11.2026
# Between:
Smt.C.Rajya Lakshmi …. Petitioners.
And
Sri Thoka Venkateswarlu and
Four others …. Respondents.
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri A.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy
^ : .
Counsel for Respondents Sri Ch.Ravinder
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :
1. 2019) 12 SCC 210
2. (2003) 1 SCC 557
3. (2016) 14 SCC 275
4 Judgment of the High Court of Delhi, New Delhi dt.16.09.2010 passed in
CM (M) No.1169/ 2010 and CM No.16291/2010
5. AIR 2020 J&K 91
6. AIR Online 2019 ALL. 1931
7. (2005) 6 SCC 344
8. AIR 2004 SC 1801
9. (2020) 2 SCC 708
3
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1107 of 2025
(CNR No: HBHC010185552025 )
Date : 06-11-2026
Reserved on : 17-09-2026 Pronounced on : 06-11-2026
Uploaded on : 06-11-2026
Between:
Smt.C.Rajya Lakshmi …. Petitioner.
And
Sri Thoka Venkateswarlu and
Four others …. Respondents.
ORDER:
Heard Sri A.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the
Revision Petitioner and Sri Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The present Revision Petition is filed assailing the order
dated 17.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.951 of 2024 in O.S.No.142 of
2019 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City
Civil Court at Hyderabad allowing the petition filed under Section
4
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection
of the written statement filed by the revision petitioner in
O.S.No.941/2019, as arbitrary.
3. The Revision petitioner is the defendant No.1 in the suit filed
by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs for declaration of title,
perpetual injunction and to declare the judgment and decree passed
in O.S.No.540 of 2017 dated 24.10.2018 on the file of the
III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad as null
and void and not binding on the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
4. Pursuant to the institution of the suit, and after dismissal of
petition vide I.A.No.783 of 2019 filed under Order VII Rule 11
CPC seeking rejection of plaint, the Revision petitioner filed
written statement on 01.05.2024 and the same was accepted by the
learned Trial Court.
5. Subsequently, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the present
application in I.A.No.951 of 2024 under Section 151 CPC seeking
for rejection of the written statement, contending that the written
statement was filed after five long years, which is beyond 30 days.
It is the case of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that as per the
5
amendment to the Order V Rule 1 sub-rule (1) for the second
proviso, the written statement cannot be accepted beyond 30 days
by recording the reasons and should be not later than 120 days from
the date of service of notice, and if the written statement is not filed
within the extended period of 120 days, the defendant will forfeit
the right to file written statement and the Court shall not allow the
written statement to be taken on record and the same principles
applies to the new proviso to Order VIII Rule1 CPC and therefore
considering the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and the decision in SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited Vs.
1
K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and others ,
prayed for rejection of the written statement.
6. The Revision petitioners filed counter-affidavit contending
that the written statement was filed after dismissal of petition under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed for rejection of plaint, and therefore,
they are entitled to file written statement after decision rendered in
the said petition.
1
(2019) 12 SCC 210
6
7. The Revision petitioners placed reliance on the decision of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Saleem Bhai and others Vs. State of
2
Maharashtra and others wherein it was held that a direction to file
the written statement without deciding the application under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the
exercise the jurisdiction of the Trial Court.
8. Therefore, contended to dismiss the Petition filed by the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 for rejection of the written statement.
9. Upon considering the rival submissions, the learned Trial
Court allowed the petition rejecting the written statement on the
ground that the written statement filed by the revision
petitioner/defendant No.1 after lapse of 5 years from the date of
filing the suit, cannot be taken into record.
10. The learned Trial Court further held that pendency of petition
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC does not extend the time for filing the
written statement and filing after 5 years from the date of receipt of
summons is highly belated and liable to be rejected and held that
the written statement is liable to be rejected.
2
(2003) 1 SCC 557
7
11. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition is filed.
12. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner contended that
the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the ruling of the
3
Apex Court in R.K.Roja Vs. U.S. Rayudu and another wherein it
was held that defendant is entitled to file application under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC before filing the written statement, in case the
application is rejected, the defendant is entitled to file the written
statement thereafter.
13. It is also contended that in the matter of Saleem Bhai
(supra), a direction to file written statement without deciding the
application under Order 7 Rule11 CPC cannot but be a procedural
irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned
Trial Court.
14. Learned counsel further contended that the principle relating
to the mandatory time limit for filing the written statement and the
limited discretion of the Court to condone delay applies only to
commercial disputes. Hence, the learned counsel sought to set aside
the impugned order and allow the Revision Petition.
3
(2016) 14 SCC 275
8
15. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that the order passed by the
learned Trial Court is just and reasonable, do not call for the
indulgence of this Court, and that in view of amendment of Order
V Rule 1, sub-rule (1) CPC, the written statement should be filed
within 30 days from the date of receiving summons and the time
cannot be extended beyond 120 days from the date of serving the
summons.
16. It is further contended that the written statement was not
filed within 120 days but filed on 01.05.2024, after dismissal of
I.A.No.783 of 2019 filed for rejection of plaint on 05.03.2024, and
written statement was taken on record. Therefore, the written
statement is not filed within the statutory time, but filed after 5
years, and that pendency of petition for rejection of plaint is not a
ground and cannot be taken as extending limitation.
17. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in R.K.Roja (supra), Saleem Bhai (supra) ,
9
4
Sh.Vinay Singh Vs. Mrs.Rinku Gupta , Amit Chawala and others
5
Vs. Nirmal Chawala and others and Smt.Sarita Tiwari Vs. Vidya
6
Bhusan Pandey and two others and contended to dismiss the
Revision Petition .
18. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions
made by both the parties and perused the record.
19. Upon perusal of the provisions of Order V and Order VIII
CPC regarding the filing of Written statement is concerned, sub
section (1) of Order V deals with when a suit has been duly
instituted, summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and
answer the claim and to file the written statement in his defence, if
any within a period of 30 days from the date of service of summons
on the defendant whereas sub-section (1) of Order VIII states that
the defendant shall, within 30 days from the date of service of
summons on him, present the written statement of his defence.
Provided, where the defendant fails to file the written statement
within the said period of 30 days, he shall be allowed to file the
4
Judgment of the High Court of Delhi, New Delhi dt.16.09.2010 passed in
CM (M) No.1169/ 2010 and CM No.16291/2010
5
AIR 2020 J&K 91
6
AIR Online 2019 ALL. 1931
10
same on other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to
be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than 120 days
from the date of service of summons. Provided that, where the
defendant fails to file the written statement within the period of 30
days, he shall be allowed to file written statement on such other
day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in
writing and on payment of such costs as the court deems fit, but it
shall not be later than 120 days from the date of service of
summons and on expiry of 120 days from the date of service of
summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written
statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be
taken on record.
20. The second proviso speaks that ‘provided further that where
the defendant fails to file written statement within the period of 30
days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day as may
be specified by the Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing
but which shall not be later than 90 days from the date of service of
summons, which was incorporated to Order V Rule 1 by way of an
amendment in the year 2016 w.e.f. 23.10.2015 prescribing
11
maximum limit of 90 days for filing written statement in certain
circumstances with the leave of the Court after expiry of initial
period of 30 days.
21. However, the second proviso is only applicable to
Commercial Disputes of a specified value but not to the regular
civil suits. Therefore, the second proviso to Order V sub-section (1)
CPC is not applicable in the present circumstances of the case.
22. Considering the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in
the matter of Salem Advocates Bar Association Vs. Union of
7
India , wherein it was held that “… there is no restriction in Order
VIII Rule 10 CPC that after expiry of 90 days, further time cannot
be granted. The Court has wide power to ‘make such order in
relation to the suit as it thinks fit’. Clearly, therefore, the provision
of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC providing for the upper limit of 90 days
to file written statement is a directory. Having said so, we wish
make it clear that the order extending time to file written statement
cannot be made in routine. The time can be extended only in
exceptionally hard cases. While extending the time, it has to be
7
(2005) 6 SCC 344
12
borne in mind that the legislature has fixed the upper time limit of
90 days. The discretion of the Court to extend the time shall not be
so frequently and routinely exercised so as to nullify the period
fixed by Order VIII Rule 1 CPC”.
23. Therefore, if a party could able to establish sufficient reasons
for non-filing the written statement in a prescribed limit, the Courts,
in its discretionary powers, can admit the written statement filed
beyond 90 days from the date of receipt of summons in the suit.
24. In the present case, the Revision petitioner/defendant timely
filed an application for rejection of the plaint and the same is
pending consideration for almost 5 years. Though, the proceedings
under Order VII Rule 1 CPC, 1908 is independent and does not
extend the time for filing written statement, the aspect whether the
defendant could wait to file his written statement till the disposal of
the application was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
R.K. Roja (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court held that once an
application is filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to
dispose of the application before proceeding with the trial. There is
no point or sense in proceeding with the trial of the case, in case the
13
plaint is only to be rejected at the threshold. 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.
25. In the same judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred a
relevant portion from para-20 of the decision in Sopan Sukhdeo
8
Sable and others Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others
as under:
“20. … Rule 11 of Order 7 lays down an independent
remedy made available to the defendant to challenge the
maintainability of the suit itself, irrespective of his right to
contest the same on merits. The law absolutely does not
contemplate any stage when the objections can be raised,
and also does not say in express terms about filing of a
written statement. Instead, the word ‘shall’ is used, clearly
implying thereby that it casts a duty on the court to
perform its obligations in rejecting the plaint when the
same is hit by any of the infirmities provided in the four
clauses of Rule 11, even without intervention of the
defendant. ..”
26. In Saleem Bhai case (supra), the Supreme Court also held
that a direction to file the written statement without deciding
8
AIR 2004 SC 1801
14
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot but be a
procedural irregularity touching the jurisdiction of the learned Trial
Court. Therefore, the filing of written statement is a directory and
written statement filed by the defendant beyond 30 days
permissible under exceptional circumstances.
27. The learned Trial Court observed that the ratio decided in
SCG Contracts India Limited (supra) for strict application of the
time limit for filing the written statement is fundamentally flawed.
28. The said judgment rendered especially in the context of
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 where the Supreme Court held that
absolute bar and 120 day outer limit under amendment Order VIII
Rule 1 CPC strictly apply to Commercial disputes. This aspect was
considered by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter
9
of Desh Raj Vs. Balkishan and held that in the context of
Commercial Courts Act but not applicable in respect of non-
commercial suits. Applying the judgment to an ordinary civil suit
governed by the CPC and ignoring the judgment of R.K. Roja
(supra) passed in the context of an application under Order VII
9
(2020) 2 SCC 708
15
Rule 11 CPC is an apparent error committed by the learned Trial
Court.
29. In the present case, the maintainability of the suit was
assailed by the Revision petitioner at the threshold itself and the
Court took almost five years to decide the said application. The
time taken by the Court to decide the application cannot be
computed to prejudice or detriment the litigant.
30. The suit is filed for declaration of title and cancellation of a
decree passed in a civil suit. When a decree affecting the valuable
property rights itself is under challenge, by applying the maxim
ctus curiae neminem gravabit
‘A ’ , the Courts should adopt liberal
approach towards technicalities and strive to adjudicate the dispute
on the merits.
31. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is
liable to be set aside. The Trial Court is directed to accept the
written statement on record and proceed with the suit proceedings
duly providing appropriate opportunity to both parties.
16
32. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and
order dated 17.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.951 of 2024 in
O.S.No.142 of 2019 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, is set aside.
33. Interim order granted if any stand vacated. Pending
miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. No costs.
__________________________
GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Date: 06.11.2026
Vsv