Delay in filing written statement in partition suits may be condoned to ensure finality of adjudication.

The respondent (original plaintiff) filed Regular Civil Suit No. 14 of 2016 against his step-brother, the petitioner (original defendant), seeking partition and separate possession of suit property.

Summons were served, and the petitioner appeared on March 6, 2016.

However, he filed his written statement along with an application (Exhibit-12) to condone a delay of 58 days.

On November 15, 2016, the Trial Court rejected the application, holding that the petitioner failed to establish sufficient cause.

The petitioner approached the High Court via Writ Petition eight years later in 2024, during which time the trial remained pending and the plaintiff had been partly cross-examined.

Whether the Trial Court erred in refusing to exercise its discretion to condone a 58-day delay in filing the written statement in a partition suit.

Whether the long pendency of the suit and the specific nature of partition litigation justify allowing the written statement on record despite a significant lapse of time.

The Court applied Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the timeline for filing a written statement.

It relied on the principle established in *Kailash v. Nanhku*, noting that the 90-day provision is directory, not mandatory, though extension is not automatic.

It further considered *Sudhirkumar Krishnalal Sahani v. Nagar Parishad Hinganghat*, which emphasizes that while discretion must be used cautiously and for adequate reasons, it can be exercised in exceptional cases to prevent technical knockouts.

Finally, it referenced *Desh Raj v. Balkishan (d) through Proposed L.R.* (2020), where the Supreme Court took a lenient view in condoning delays based on unique circumstances.

The Court reasoned that in partition suits, every party is effectively a plaintiff, and the defendant has a fundamental right to demonstrate if a property is self-acquired or previously partitioned.

It observed that failing to record the defendant's pleadings would result in an incomplete adjudication, leading to further complications during the execution of the decree and likely resulting in the matter being remanded by higher courts later.

Despite the petitioner’s eight-year delay in challenging the 2016 order, the Court noted the parties are nearly 80 years old and the petitioner is a "poor agriculturist" from a remote area.

The Court found that "ends of justice" would be better served by a trial on merits rather than a technical default, especially since the petitioner undertook not to seek adjournments and to adhere to his already tendered examination-in-chief.

The Court condoned the delay and directed the written statement to be taken on record, subject to the petitioner paying costs of ₹15,000 to the respondent.

The Trial Court was directed to conclude the proceedings in a time-bound manner within 10 months.

Rule was made absolute.