Written Statements May Be Accepted Beyond 120 Days for Recorded Reasons, Subject to Costs

The petitioners challenged the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga’s order dated 27 November 2025 rejecting their application to file a written statement after the 120-day period under the Karnataka Amendment to the CPC.

They submitted that illness had prevented them from securing documents and assisting counsel, and that the written statement was filed 23 days after the period expired.

The High Court heard the matter under Article 227 and dispensed with notice to the respondents.

The Court noted that the explanation addressed the defendants’ inability to assist counsel but did not adequately explain why the documents could not have been secured within 120 days.

Whether the trial court could permit the petitioners to file a written statement after expiry of the 120-day period under the Karnataka Amendment to the CPC

Whether the rejection of the written statement should be set aside where the explanation for delay was partly insufficient, but any prejudice to the plaintiffs could be compensated by costs

Order VIII Rule 1, as amended in Karnataka, restricts the time for filing a written statement to 120 days.

The Court relied on the co-ordinate Bench’s decision in Basavaraj S. v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 8032 of 2026, dated 28 July 2026, which held that a trial court may, for reasons recorded, permit a written statement after 120 days and compensate the plaintiff for resulting prejudice.

The petition was considered under the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Applying the co-ordinate Bench decision, the Court held that expiry of 120 days did not, by itself, preclude acceptance of the written statement.

Although the petitioners’ explanation did not fully account for their failure to secure documents within the prescribed period, the Court considered the explanation concerning illness and inability to assist counsel credible.

It concluded that any inconvenience to the plaintiffs could be addressed by imposing costs.

It permitted the petitioners to file the written statement, directed the trial court to take it on record, and ordered the petitioners to pay costs of ₹10,000 to the plaintiffs.

Acceptance of the written statement was made conditional on producing acknowledgment of payment of costs.