Reply To Injunction Application Filed Within Limitation May Be Treated As Written Statement To Meet Ends Of Justice

The petitioners (Defendant Nos. 6 and 7) purchased agricultural land from Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 via a sale deed dated 07.10.2005.

The Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and cancellation of said sale deed based on a prior agreement to sell dated 18.03.2004.

The petitioners filed a reply (Exh. 23) and an affidavit (Exh. 24) against the temporary injunction application on 25.02.2006 but failed to file a formal written statement (WS) within 90 days of service.

Following a compromise between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in 2019, the petitioners moved an application (Exh. 130) to file their WS.

The Trial Court rejected the application citing the expiry of the statutory period under Order VIII Rule 1.

1. Whether a defendant who failed to file a formal written statement within the prescribed time limit can be permitted to have their reply to a temporary injunction application treated as a written statement.

2. Whether the Trial Court’s rejection of the application to file a written statement was justified given that the right to file the same had not been officially closed by a court order.

Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which mandates the filing of a written statement within 30 days, extendable up to 90 days from the date of service of summons.

The principle of the "larger interest of justice," holding that while the timeline is generally mandatory, the court retains the jurisdiction to permit the inclusion of pleadings in interest of a fair trial, particularly where the defendant's contest is already on record in the form of an injunction reply.

The High Court observed that although the petitioners did not file a formal WS within the maximum 90-day period, they had actively participated in the proceedings since 2006 by filing a detailed reply and affidavit (Exh. 23 and 24) against the injunction application.

The Court found that the averments in the plaint and the injunction application were nearly identical; thus, the petitioners' reply effectively addressed the merits of the suit.

The Court noted that the Trial Court had never formally passed an order closing the defendants' right to file a WS.

Given that Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 had entered a compromise that potentially prejudiced the petitioners' title, the Court reasoned that denying the petitioners a defense would cause irreparable injury.

The court exercised its discretion to treat existing pleadings (the injunction reply) as the WS to ensure the case is decided on its merits.

The Court held that Exhibits 23 and 24 shall be treated as the written statement and affidavit of Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 in Special Civil Suit No. 9 of 2006.

The Court rejected the respondent's request for a stay on this judgment, emphasizing the need to proceed with the justice-oriented approach.