Karnataka’s amended CPC does not absolutely bar delayed written statements in exceptional cases.

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for their son’s death.

The insurer did not file its written statement within time.

It later sought permission to file one, explaining that the matter had been under investigation to collect documents and that the insurer sent the written statement after the limitation period had expired.

The claimants did not oppose the application, subject to costs.

The Tribunal rejected it, relying on the amendment to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The insurer challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the insurer’s application to file a written statement after the prescribed period, despite the explanation given for the delay.

Whether the application could be allowed in light of the Karnataka High Court’s reading down of the relevant CPC amendment.

Order VIII Rule 1 and Rule 10 of the CPC, as amended by Section 4 of the Karnataka Amendment Act, 2024, were considered in light of the decision in Basavaraj S. v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 8032 of 2026 connected with W.P. No. 9372 of 2026.

That decision read down the amendment so that the expressions requiring forfeiture of the right to file a written statement and barring its receipt do not completely exclude judicial discretion in exceptional cases; courts may receive a late written statement only in strict adherence to the stated principles and upon recording reasons demonstrating exceptional and compelling circumstances.

The Court also exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The insurer’s explanation was that it needed time to investigate the matter and collect documents, and that the written statement was sent only after the limitation period had expired; the Court accepted that the delay was not intentional and that sufficient cause had been shown.

Applying the reading down in Basavaraj S., the Court held that the amendment did not require the Tribunal to reject the application without considering the circumstances.

It therefore found the Tribunal’s rejection erroneous, particularly as the claimants had not opposed permission subject to costs.

It allowed I.A. No. 1 subject to the insurer paying costs of ₹5,000 to the claimants before the next hearing and directed that the written statement be taken on record.