Order VIII Rule 10 confers discretion; belated written statements may be accepted without automatic decree.

The petitioner, plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 279-A/2025, sought declaration of ownership on the basis of adverse possession and permanent injunction concerning land bearing Khasra No. 533, admeasuring 0.4200 hectare, situated at Village Paloud.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 entered appearance on 03.09.2025 but allegedly failed to file their written statement despite repeated opportunities granted on 17.09.2025, 10.10.2025, 30.10.2025, 18.11.2025, 04.12.2025, 17.01.2026, 28.01.2026 and 09.02.2026.

The petitioner consequently filed an application under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC on 27.02.2026. The Trial Court thereafter granted a further opportunity, and Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed their written statement on 16.03.2026.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227, alleging that his application under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC had neither been considered nor decided by a reasoned order before the written statement was taken on record.

Whether the Trial Court failed to consider and decide the petitioner’s application dated 27.02.2026 under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC before permitting Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to file their belated written statement?

Whether, after the written statement had already been taken on record, the High Court should exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and remit the matter for consideration of the petitioner’s application?

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution of India, under which the High Court exercises limited supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that subordinate courts act within their jurisdiction and according to law.

It considered Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, which confers discretion on the court where a written statement is not filed within the permitted time and does not mandate an automatic decree in every case.

Relying on Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri, (2019) 17 SCC 214, the Court reiterated that the court may, in an appropriate case, permit a belated written statement and that Order VIII Rule 10 does not produce an automatic consequence.

The Court also emphasized that applications filed during proceedings should be expressly recorded in the order sheet and, where adjudication is required, decided by an appropriate and, where necessary, reasoned order.

The High Court found that the material placed before it did not establish that the petitioner’s application dated 27.02.2026 had been formally taken on record or that any order had been passed upon it.

Crucially, the order sheet dated 16.03.2026—the date on which the written statement was allegedly accepted—had not been produced. Consequently, the Court could not determine whether the Trial Court had bypassed the application or had dealt with it while accepting the written statement.

Further, in light of Ashok Kumar Kalra, acceptance of a delayed written statement was within the Trial Court’s discretionary power and did not automatically require rejection of the written statement.

Since the written statement had already been taken on record, and the relevant order sheet was absent, remanding the matter merely to reconsider the Order VIII Rule 10 application would have served no effective purpose and would have caused unnecessary delay.

The Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner’s claim of adverse possession or the validity of the belated written statement.

It nevertheless directed, by way of observation, that trial courts must properly record the filing of applications in the order sheet and decide applications requiring adjudication through appropriate and, where necessary, reasoned orders.