Judicial Discretion to Condone Delay in Filing Written Statements Furthering Substantial Justice in Non-Commercial Suits

The petitioners (father and brother of the respondent) filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction against the respondent

The respondent/defendant filed her written statement with a delay of 229 days, citing a lack of material documents and a change of counsel as reasons for the delay

On November 21, 2023, the Trial Court allowed the respondent's application under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC for condonation of delay, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-

The petitioners challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution, alleging the delay was mala fide and the explanation frivolous

1. Whether the Trial Court exercised its discretion legally and properly in condoning a 229-day delay in filing the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC

2. Whether the interest of justice and the principle of deciding matters on merits outweigh technical delays in non-commercial suits

Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which prescribes a 30-day limit for filing a written statement, extendable up to 90 days for recorded reasons

The principle from Kailash v. Nankhu (2005), which establishes that the time limit in Order VIII Rule 1 is directory, not mandatory, in non-commercial suits, and extensions beyond 90 days should be granted as an exception in the interest of justice

Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. v. Gobardhan Sao and Ors. (2002), holding that technicalities should not defeat substantial justice, and a pedantic approach should be avoided when stakes are high or arguable points of fact/law exist

The Court observed that the Trial Court had balanced the competing interests by ensuring the case is decided on its merits rather than on technical grounds of delay

While the delay was significant (229 days), the Court noted that the litigation involved family members (father, brother, and daughter) regarding property possession, and the respondent’s explanation regarding the change of counsel and document collection was plausible

The Court reasoned that since the suit was already at the stage of respondent's evidence, refusing the written statement at this juncture would cause "grave injustice"

It affirmed that the Trial Court’s use of "exemplary costs" was an appropriate way to offset the prejudice caused to the petitioners by the delay

The Court concluded that the extension of time was necessary in the interest of justice. The Trial Court's decision to condone the delay subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was upheld, and the written statement remained on record