In Absence Of Defendant's Written Request, Trial Courts Cannot On Its Own Extend Time For Filing Written Statement After 30 Days: Madras High Court

“The trial courts shall not on their own extend the time for filing the written statement after the expiry of thirty days. It can be done only at the request of the defendant. The request cannot be made orally. It should be in writing. It should contain good reasons. Any written statement filed after thirty days can be accepted only upon condonation of delay in filing the same,” the court said.

Justice GR Swaminathan also noted that the orders condoning delay for filing written statements should not be passed mechanically and must contain the reasons. The court added that while condoning delay was discretionary, it was mandatory for the courts to record reasons in the order. The court also said that the trial courts could consider awarding costs while condoning the delay.

“The orders condoning delay must contain reasons and cannot be mechanically passed. While condonation of delay is discretionary, recording of reasons is mandatory. Courts should also consider awarding costs while condoning the delay,” the court observed.

The court was hearing two civil revision petitions filed by Ramesh Flowers Private Limited- one against the dismissal of an interim application filed by it for rejection of the written statement and another against the order of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi taking on file the written statement filed by the respondent/defendant Sumit Srimal.

Srimal's counsel argued that the orders of the District Judge were well reasoned. He added that the court itself had, on its own accord, extended the time for filing the written statement and thus it could not be said that there was a delay in filing the written statement. Pointing to the Supreme Court's decision in R.N.Jadi and Brother v. Subhaschandra, it was also argued that technical adherence to the rules should not take away the valuable right of the defendant to file a written statement.

The court, however, did not agree with the respondent's submission. The court noted that though the trial court had adjourned the case for filing a written statement, a mistake of the court should not be taken advantage of by a party when it is contrary to the statute.

The court added that when the statute itself has prescribed a time limit, the parties should adhere to the same and in case of failure must offer a proper explanation and seek condonation. The court added that instead of seeking condonation, the defendant could not have ridden piggyback on the mechanical endorsements made by the trial court.

The court ruled that since Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only talked about the rejection of the plaint and the CPC was absent on the rejection of the written statement, the CRP filed by the petitioner for the said relief could not be granted. However, noting that the trial court should not have accepted the written statement which was filed after the expiry of 30 days, without petition for condonation, the court set aside the trial court order and allowed the CRP.

The court also gave liberty to the respondents to file the written statement along with a petition for condonation of delay which the District Judge may allow and receive the written statement.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.J.Sivanandaraaj, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.S.Karthik Ramaswamy for Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.P.Sunil for Mr.C.Ravichandran

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 357

Case Title: Ramesh Flowers Private Limited v. Mr.Sumit Srimal

Case No: CRP(MD)Nos.1853 & 1854 of 2024