Courts may permit delayed written statements where plaintiffs fail to supply plaint documents.

The petitioners, defendants in Civil Suit No. 220A of 2025, challenged the order dated 17 June 2026 by which the trial court forfeited their right to file a written statement.

The suit concerned vacant possession and permanent injunction relating to land bearing Khasra No. 243/33, admeasuring 1,800 sq. ft., situated at Village Banrasi, Raipur.

The defendants entered appearance on 7 October 2025 and, on several subsequent dates, sought copies of the plaint and documents relied upon by the plaintiffs; the trial court repeatedly directed the plaintiffs to supply those documents.

The defendants thereafter filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which was decided on 13 May 2026. When the matter was listed for filing of the written statement on 17 June 2026, the defendants again stated that the documents had not been supplied, but the trial court forfeited their right to file the written statement.

Whether the trial court was justified in forfeiting the defendants’ right to file their written statement when the plaintiffs had not supplied the plaint documents despite repeated directions?

Whether, in the circumstances, the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and grant the defendants one further opportunity to file the written statement?

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the High Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts to ensure that proceedings are conducted in accordance with law.

It considered Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, which prescribes the time for filing a written statement, but held, relying on Bharat Kalra v. Raj Kishan Chhabra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 613, that the prescribed period, including the 90-day period, is not mandatory in all circumstances.

The Court further applied the principle that procedural timelines should not defeat a party’s substantive right to defend where the delay is attributable to circumstances reflected in the court record and an opportunity can be granted without causing prejudice.

The order-sheets established that the defendants had repeatedly sought copies of the documents and that the trial court had, on multiple occasions, directed the plaintiffs to supply them.

The order dated 10 March 2026 specifically recorded the plaintiffs’ request for time to provide the documents, after which the defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 20 March 2026.

Although the written statement had not been filed within 90 days, the Court held that the period under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC was not inflexible in light of Bharat Kalra.

Since the defendants’ inability to file the written statement was supported by the order-sheets and was connected with the non-supply of documents, forfeiture of their defence was considered disproportionate.

The interests of justice were therefore better served by granting one final opportunity subject to a strict time limit.

The trial court was directed to fix a date for filing the written statement, which date could not be later than 10 days from the High Court’s order.

If filed within that stipulated period, the written statement was directed to be taken on record, after which the suit was to proceed in accordance with law.