Filing Of Written Statement Beyond Permissible Time Can Be Allowed If Exceptional Circumstances Are Made Out: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that the Court can permit the filing of a Written Statement beyond permissible time under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC if exceptional circumstances are made out.
The Court was hearing a petition against the order of the trial Court that closed the petitioner's right to file a written statement.
The bench of Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana observed, “…it would be open to the Court to permit the petitioners or defendants to file written statement if exceptional circumstances have been made out.”
Brief Facts-
The plaintiff M/s Sai Baba Collection filed a suit for recovery of money. The trial Court ordered the respondent Canara Bank to notify the petitioners. The petitioners appeared and filed a Vakalatnama, receiving the necessary documents, and were directed to file a written statement. They requested more time, and the Court extended the deadline. However, on the date of submission of the Written Statement, the petitioners did not appear or file the statement, leading the Court to close their right to do so.
The Court mentioned the decision in Salem Advocate Bar Assn. v. Union of India and observed, “it has been held that the provisions including the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC are not mandatory but directory. It has been held in that decision that the delay can be condoned and the Written Statement can be accepted even after the expiry of 90 days from the date of service of summons in exceptionally hard cases. It has also been held in that decision that the use of the word “shall” in Order 8 Rule 1 CPC by itself is not conclusive to determine whether the provision is mandatory or directory. The use of the word “shall” is ordinarily indicative of mandatory nature of the provision but having regard to the decision in that case, the same can be construed as directory.”
The Court said that the defendants should file an application for condoning the delay in filing Written Statement. However the Court said that it is not in a position to hold the petitioners had not filed any application to receive the Written Statement to condoning the delay even after expiry of the period mentioned in the proviso to under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC.
After perusing Order VIII rule 1 CPC, the Court said that it is unable to hold that the provision under Order VIII Rule 1 are mandatory in nature.
The Court noted that in the present case, the Written Statement could not be filed within a period of limitation.
The Court said that in the present case non-supply of a complete set of plaint and other relevant documents much before the date of filing the Written Statement delayed filing the Written Statement within a period of limitation.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Sai baba Collection v. Canara Bank
Appearance:
Adv. Sheersh Agrawal
