Order VIII Rule 1 CPC - Period For Filing Of Written Statement Is Directory In Civil Suits; But Mandatory In Commercial Suits: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that the period of 90 days for filing of written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure in civil suits is directory.

The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian held the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC are mandatory in the Commercial Courts under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

"It may be stated herein that the provisions of Order 8 Rule of CPC are mandatory in the Commercial Courts under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015", the Supreme Court observed in the judgment.

In this case, in a suit for specific performance of contract, the written statement was no filed by the defendant beyond the time stipulated under Order 8, Rule 1, CPC, but the petitioner did not file any application disclosing reason for not being able to file written statement within time. Eight months later, the defendant filed an application in which he stated that the delay is on account of mistake and oversight.  The trial Court rejected the said application holding that the petitioner has failed to disclose any satisfactory reason much less any compelling reason for not being able to file written statement within time. The High Court upheld the said Trial Court order observing that the ground of 'mistake' cannot be said to be a compelling circumstance beyond the control of the petitioner, so as to condone delay in filing the written statement 

"We find that the High Court has completely misdirected itself not to take written statement on record in view of the judgments of this Court in 'Kailash Vs. Nanhku & Ors.', reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 and 'Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India', reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 wherein it was held that the period of 90 days for filing of written statement is directory.", the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed while allowing the appeal.

The bench then remitted the matter  to the trial Court to decide the suit on merits after taking into consideration the written statement already filed by the defendant.

Written Statement in Civil Cases

Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.

In Kailash Vs. Nanhku, it was held thus:

1. The purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. The provision spells out a disability on the defendant. It does not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time. Though, the language of the proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII of the CPC is couched in negative form, it does not specify any penal consequences flowing from the non- compliance. The provision being in the domain of the Procedural Law, it has to be held directory and not mandatory. The power of the Court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC is not completely taken away.
2. Though Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC is a part of Procedural Law and hence directory, keeping in view the need for expeditious trial of civil causes which persuaded the Parliament to enact the provision in its present form, it is held that ordinarily the time schedule contained in the provision is to be followed as a rule and departure therefrom would be by way of exception. A prayer for extension of time made by the defendant shall not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for asking, more so when the period of 90 days has expired. Extension of time may be allowed by way of an exception, for reasons to be assigned by the defendant and also be placed on record in writing, howsoever briefly, by the Court on its being satisfied. Extension of time may be allowed if it was needed to be given for the circumstances which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. Costs may be imposed and affidavit or documents in support of the grounds pleaded by the defendant for extension of time may be demanded, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case.

In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India, it was observed that there is no restriction in Order VIII Rule 10 that after expiry of ninety days, further time cannot be granted. "The Court has wide power to 'make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit'. Clearly, therefore, the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 providing for upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory. Having said so, we wish to make it clear that the order extending time to file written statement cannot be made in routine. The time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. While extending time, it has to be borne in mind that the legislature has fixed the upper time limit of 90 days. The discretion of the Court to extend the time shall not be so frequently and routinely exercised so as to nullify the period fixed by Order VIII Rule 1."

In Commercial Courts

The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, amended this provision by adding the following proviso to Rule 1: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record. But this was made applicable to cases involving commercial disputes.

In SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, the Supreme Court observed that this proviso is mandatory and no written statement can be taken on record in commercial suits, if it is not filed within 120 days from the date of service of summons of the Suit.

In a judgment delivered last year, the Supreme Court in Desh Raj v Balkishan(D) clarified that the mandatory time-line for filing written statement is not applicable to non-commercial suits. As regards non-commercial suits, the time-line for written statement is directory and not mandatory, the Court held.

Click here to Read/Download Order