Telangana HC Lets Property Defendant File 5-Year-Late Written Statement After Trial Court Took Nearly 5 Years To Decide Her Bid To End Suit

In brief

The question

Whether the time limit for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is mandatory in an ordinary, non-commercial suit, such that the written statement filed after five years could not be accepted

The court held

The High Court answered the issues in the petitioner’s favour, allowed the revision, and set aside the Trial Court’s order dated 17 February 2025.

It also directed

It directed the Trial Court to accept the written statement and proceed with the suit, giving both parties an appropriate opportunity to be heard.

Interim orders, if any, were vacated; pending miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The respondents sued for declaration of title, perpetual injunction, and a declaration that an earlier decree was null and not binding on them.

¶ 3–11, 16

The petitioner, Defendant No. 1, first sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

¶ 3–11, 16

After that application was dismissed on 5 March 2024, she filed her written statement on 1 May 2024.

¶ 3–11, 16

The respondents applied under Section 151 CPC to have it rejected as filed beyond the prescribed period; the Trial Court allowed their application, finding the written statement filed about five years after service of summons was too late.

¶ 3–11, 16

The petitioner challenged that order in revision.

¶ 3–11, 16

02Issues

i.Whether the time limit for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is mandatory in an ordinary, non-commercial suit, such that the written statement filed after five years could not be accepted

¶ 14–16, 19–23

ii.Whether the petitioner’s pursuit of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which took nearly five years to decide, justified accepting her written statement after that application was dismissed

¶ 24–30

03Law Applied

Order VIII Rule 1 CPC sets a 30-day period for filing a written statement, but in ordinary, non-commercial suits the time limit is directory and the court may extend time in exceptional circumstances; that discretion should not be exercised routinely (Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344).

¶ 19, 22–23

The stricter 120-day outer limit under the amended CPC applies to commercial disputes and does not govern ordinary civil suits (SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., (2019) 12 SCC 210; Desh Raj v. Balkishan, (2020) 2 SCC 708).

¶ 27–28

A defendant may seek rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 before filing a written statement; if that application is rejected, the defendant may then file the written statement (R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu, (2016) 14 SCC 275).

¶ 24–25

The court must consider an Order VII Rule 11 application before proceeding with the trial; directing a written statement before deciding it may amount to procedural irregularity (Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557).

¶ 7, 26

The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit—an act of the court should prejudice no one—supports avoiding prejudice caused by court delay.

¶ 30

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

04Reasoning

The Court held that the 120-day bar relied on by the respondents concerned commercial disputes and did not govern this ordinary civil suit.

¶ 21, 28

The petitioner had challenged the plaint’s maintainability under Order VII Rule 11, and the Trial Court took nearly five years to decide that application.

¶ 24, 29

Although pursuing that application did not itself extend the time for filing a written statement, R.K. Roja recognised that the defendant could file the written statement after the application was rejected.

¶ 24, 29

Given the court’s delay and the property rights at stake, rejecting the written statement would unfairly prejudice the petitioner; the Trial Court therefore erred in refusing to accept it.

¶ 29–31