Karnataka HC Sends Defendant’s Late Written-Statement Bid Back for Fresh Decision Under 120-Day Exception Guidelines

The petitioner sought review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of the order dated 21 February 2026 in W.P. No. 5845/2026.

That order had dismissed his writ petition and upheld the trial court’s order rejecting IA No. 4 in O.S. No. 294/2025, concerning the defendant’s written statement filed beyond the 120-day period under the 2025 Karnataka amendment to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

In support of review, the petitioner relied on a later decision of the High Court dated 28 July 2026 in W.P. No. 8032/2026 connected with W.P. No. 9372/2026, which construed the amended provision as allowing a limited exception in exceptional circumstances.

Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC provides for review in accordance with the grounds prescribed by the Code.

Under the 2025 Karnataka amendment to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, the 120-day limit for filing a written statement is ordinarily to be followed; however, as construed in the High Court’s decision in W.P. No. 8032/2026 connected with W.P. No. 9372/2026, departure may be permitted only in exceptional circumstances beyond the defendant’s control, on proof of due diligence, for recorded reasons, and ordinarily subject to realistic costs.

Negligence, inaction, oversight, or routine administrative delay is insufficient.

That decision also directed trial courts to apply the exception sparingly and to assess bona fides, diligence, and the risk of procedural delay.

The Court noted that its earlier order had treated the amended 120-day limit as mandatory, whereas the later decision had construed the provision to preserve a narrow judicial discretion in exceptional cases.

In light of that guidance, the Court considered that IA No. 4 should be reconsidered by the trial court under the stated parameters.

It did not determine whether the circumstances in this case justified accepting the written statement, and expressly left the merits of IA No. 4 open.

It remanded IA No. 4 in O.S. No. 294/2025 to the trial court for fresh and independent consideration in accordance with the guidelines in W.P. No. 8032/2026 connected with W.P. No. 9372/2026, without expressing any view on the application’s merits.

The original records were directed to be transmitted to the trial court forthwith.