Delay of 4745 days in filing written statement cannot be condoned without sufficient cause.

The petitioner/defendant No.2 filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 12, 2022, passed by the LV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-56).

This order dismissed I.A. No. 28, an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission to file a Written Statement after a delay of 4745 days.

The original suit (O.S. No. 16790/2006) was filed in 2006, and defendant No.2 was served and filed his Vakalathnama on November 29, 2006.

The order sheets indicated service on defendant No.2 in 2007 and that multiple dates were taken for filing the Written Statement.

Defendant No.2 filed an objection to an interim application by defendant No.5 on February 18, 2013, and an affidavit in 2015, demonstrating knowledge of the case's progress.

The grounds cited for the delay were that defendant No.2 was not in the city until 2012, and his previous counsel, who also represented other defendants, failed to file the Written Statement.

Subsequently, the counsel left practice, and the new counsel discovered the absence of the Written Statement.

Issues were framed, and evidence had concluded in the matter.

Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the application for leave to file the Written Statement after a delay of 4745 days.

The court primarily applied Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates the filing of a Written Statement within 30 days, extendable up to 90 days.

It also referenced Order V Rule 1 of the CPC regarding the summons and the period for filing the Written Statement.

The court noted the Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024, which added a third proviso to Order V Rule 1, sub-rule (1), imposing a 120-day limit for filing the Written Statement, after which the right is forfeited.

The judgment relied on the Supreme Court's decision in *Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala and Co.*, which held that while the 90-day limit in Order VIII Rule 1 is directory, extensions beyond this period should only be granted in "exceptionally hard cases" with "convincing and cogent reasons" for the delay, and not as a matter of routine.

The court also referred to *Kailash vs. Nanhku And Others* as cited in *Sri.Kempegowda Vs. Smt.Venkamma and Others*.

The High Court determined that the petitioner/defendant No.2 failed to provide sufficient cause or cogent reasons for the 4745-day delay in filing the Written Statement.

Despite defendant No.2's claim of being out of the city until 2012 and unaware of the case's progress due to counsel, the Trial Court's records showed that he had actively participated by filing an objection in 2013 and an affidavit in 2015, demonstrating his knowledge of the proceedings.

The court found the petitioner's explanation that his previous counsel failed to file the statement and subsequently left practice unconvincing, especially considering the long lapse before seeking to file the Written Statement.

Applying the principle from *Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala and Co.*, the court emphasized that extensions beyond the statutory 90-day limit for filing a Written Statement should be granted only in "exceptionally hard cases".

The present case did not meet this threshold, as the reasons provided did not justify the "abnormal delay".

The court noted that issues had already been framed and evidence concluded, further indicating that allowing the Written Statement at such a late stage would be prejudicial.

Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the Trial Court's order dated July 12, 2022, which rejected I.A. No. 28.