Interpretation of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC: Latest law on limitation for filing written statement

In this article, I shall interpret the law regarding filing of written statement, governed by order 8 Rule 1 CPC, with the aid of laws laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this regard.

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while interpreting Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, had settled the law that the provision to file Written Statement within 30 days (further extendable to 90 days) from date of service of summons, is directory in nature and not mandatory.

Lawyers across the country, have been relying on the two judgments of Supreme Court "Kailash v. Nankhu" {(2005) 4 SCC 480} and "Salem Advocates Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India" {(2005) 6 SCC 344} which hold that that procedural law is for effective administration of justice and is not above the justice. These judgments have been referred while filing applications to condone delay in filing Written Statement beyond the limit of 90 days as prescribed in CPC. The Supreme Court has clearly established the law that the grant of permission to file written statement beyond the outer period of 90 days does not carry any penal consequences. It was held that the provision of Order 8 Rule 1, CPC should not be interpreted to mean that written statement cannot be permitted to be taken on record in any event whatsoever beyond the prescribed time limit of 90 days. As such, it has been conclusively held in both the judgment mentioned above that Order 8 Rule 1, CPC, being in the realm of procedural law, is directory and not mandatory.

However, in both the judgments mentioned above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further laid that while deciding applications for condoning delay beyond the 90 days, exceptional wary approach is to be adopted by the courts and such orders should not be passed in usual manner, rather discretion is to be exercised by the Court only in exceptionally hard cases upon cogent reasons put upon by the applicant before the court.

Both the above mentioned judgments were again reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Atcom Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala" {(2018) 6 SCC 639} and held that while seeking condonation of delay beyond the prescribed 90 days period, the defendant is required to provide a satisfactory explanation as to for what reason the written statement could not be filed within the prescribed time period. It further held defendant cannot be allowed to take advantage of liberal construction of the provision meaning thereby the application for condonation of delay should have been moved within reasonable time to succeed. Condonation of delay in filing written statement beyond 90 days period is not to be granted in a routine manner merely on the ground that Order 8 Rule 1, CPC, has been held to be directory and not mandatory in earlier judgments.

Links to the judgments mentioned above:

1.    Kailash v/s Nankhu

2.    Salem Advocates Bar Association, TN v/s Union of India

3.    Atcom Technologies Pvt. Ltd v/s Y. A. Chunawala

The author is a B.Com, LL.B (Hons), LL.M, Advocate practicing at District Courts, Ludhiana. He can be reached at kalia.advocate@gmail.com. Views expressed herein are personal views of author.