Courts may accept delayed written statements in non-commercial suits upon payment of costs.

In the pending civil suit, the trial court closed defendants 1, 2 and 4’s right to file a written statement on 21 August 2026.

It later rejected their application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), filed with the prepared written statement, seeking recall of that order and acceptance of the pleading.

The defendants challenged both orders under Article 227 of the Constitution, asserting that they had been unable to file the written statement earlier due to unavoidable circumstances and would be prejudiced if denied the opportunity to present their defence.

Whether the trial court’s orders closing the defendants’ right to file a written statement and refusing to accept it should be set aside.

Whether the defendants should be permitted to place their written statement on record subject to payment of costs.

Article 227 of the Constitution provides the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

Section 151 CPC preserves the court’s inherent powers, which the defendants invoked to seek recall of the order closing their right to file a written statement.

The Court applied the principle that procedural timelines should be observed but procedure is intended to advance justice; where appropriate, delay in filing a written statement may be compensated by costs rather than by denying the opportunity to file it.

Relying on Bharat Kalra v. Raj Kishan Chabra, Civil Appeal No. 3788 of 2022 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 63 of 2022), and the Supreme Court’s reference to Kailash v. Nankhu, (2005) 4 SCC 480, the Court noted that the time limit under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory for suits outside the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and that delay may be compensated by costs.

The written statement had already been prepared and was presented with the defendants’ application seeking recall of the closure order.

Because the dispute concerned civil rights and deciding it on the merits required consideration of the proposed defence, the Court considered denial of the opportunity disproportionate.

It therefore treated costs as an appropriate means of compensating the plaintiff for delay while allowing the defence to be considered, without expressing any view on the merits of the suit.

The written statement was directed to be taken on record subject to the defendants’ payment of Rs. 10,000 to respondent 1, with payment as a condition precedent.

As the order was made without notice to the respondents, they were granted liberty to seek review in accordance with law if aggrieved; the petition and any pending applications were disposed of.