O.VIII R.1 CPC | Filing Written Statement Within Maximum Period Of 90 Days Is Directory Not Mandatory: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled on the procedural aspect of filing written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), emphasising that the time limits prescribed are meant to expedite proceedings rather than obstruct them. The Court clarified that while the standard time frame for filing a written statement is 30 days from the service of notice, the trial court...
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled on the procedural aspect of filing written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), emphasising that the time limits prescribed are meant to expedite proceedings rather than obstruct them.
The Court clarified that while the standard time frame for filing a written statement is 30 days from the service of notice, the trial court can extend this period by an additional 60 days if justified.
Justice Subhash Chand presiding over the case, observed, “In view of the Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., the time prescribed for filing the written statement from the date of service of notice is 30 days. Further, 60 days' time may be extended by the trial court to file the written statement for the reasons to be recorded.”
“The provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. to file the written statement within maximum period of 90 days is directory not mandatory,” Justice Chand added.
As per the factual matrix of the case, the defendant failed to submit the written statement within the 90-day period, leading to the closure of this opportunity by the trial court. The defendant later filed an application citing illness, specifically typhoid, as the reason for the delay in consulting a lawyer. The trial court rejected this application, prompting the defendant to challenge the decision through a writ petition.
The Court observed that the plaintiffs' objection to the late filing did not dispute the defendant's claim of illness. The Court found the grounds for the delay sufficient and referenced the judgement in Kailash vs. Nanhku & Ors. (AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2441), which affirmed that the time schedule for filing a written statement is intended to expedite proceedings, not to impose a strict embargo on extensions.
Based on these considerations, the Court set aside the order passed by the trial court and allowed the writ petition.
Case Title: Mosomat Dukho Orain V. Sheikh Khalil
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 109