Order VIII Rule 1 CPC Written Statement – The petitioner filed a written statement in response to a suit filed by the respondent The petitioner claims that the trial court wrongly rejected the written statement –
[HIGH COURT OF DELHI ]
NITIN KATARIA VERSUS VARUN JAIN
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
Order VIII Rule 1 CPC Written Statement – The petitioner filed a written statement in response to a suit filed by the respondent The petitioner claims that the trial court wrongly rejected the written statement – The trial court rejected the written statement because it was filed late and not accompanied by the required documents – The petitioner argues that they were misled by a wrong order uploaded by the court – The court found that the petitioner did not file an application to condone the delay or explain the missing documents – The court also found that the petitioner’s lawyer was present in court when the order rejecting the written statement was issued – In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition because the petitioner did not have a good reason for not filing the written statement on time*_
Relevant Paras
Analysis & Conclusion
16. Submissions heard, record perused along with the impugned order. It is relevant to note the provision under the Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides for 30 days from the date of service of summons as the time within which written statement may be filed in response to the suit. The proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 as substituted by the Commercial Courts Act reads as under:
“1. Written Statement.—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.”
17. It is also pertinent to note that a new proviso was substituted to Order VIII Rule l of the CPC which reads as follows:
“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 and 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.”
18. From the reading of the aforesaid provision, it is manifest that while the normal period for filing the written statement in response to a suit would expire 30 days from the date of service of the summons, the written statement may be filed within a further period of 90 days subject to the reasons to be recorded in writing by the Court. Necessarily, the reasons
explained by the defendant by seeking condonation of delay should be such that the Court is satisfied that there is a sufficient reason with the defendant
for not filing the written statement within 30 days. However, in commercial suits, no power vests in the Court to condone the delay beyond 120 days.
19. It is also well settled that the courts are bound to follow the timeframe defined for the purpose of limitation which is not subjected to any exception. The courts cannot extend in any manner the time frame no matter whether there is genuineness in the reasons for such a delay. To curb the prolonged delays in the lis, comprehensive amendments were
introduced in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in view of long periods being taken up for completion of pleadings in a case, such as by modifying the maximum period for filing the written statement to 120 days.
20. In the present case, the written statement though filed belatedly by the petitioner on 18.07.2022, however the other relevant documents i.e. statement of truth and admission/denial were not filed along with it. Order VI Rule 15(A) of the CPC as amended under Commercial Courts Act requires that pleadings are to be supported by a duly attested affidavit by
way of verification failing which the said pleadings shall not be permitted to be read as evidence of any fact set out in the petition.
21. Evidently, the affidavit by way of statement of truth is required to be filed along with the petition and the written statement as per the mandate of
the Act.
22. It is relevant to note the Order VI Rule 15A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which reads as under:
―[15A. Verification of pleadings in a commercial dispute.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 15, every pleading in a commercial dispute shall be verified by an affidavit in the manner and form prescribed in the Appendix to this Schedule.
(2) An affidavit under sub-rule (1) above shall be signed by the party or by one of the parties to the proceedings, or by any other person on behalf of such party or parties who is proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts
of the case and who is duly authorised by such party or parties.
(3) Where a pleading is amended, the amendments must be verified in the form and manner referred to in sub-rule (1) unless the Court orders otherwise.
(4) Where a pleading is not verified in the manner provided under sub-rule (1), the party shall not be permitted to rely on such pleading as evidence or any of the matters set out therein.
(5) The Court may strike out a pleading which is not verified by a Statement of Truth, namely, the affidavit set out in the Appendix to this Schedule.]‖
To read the judgment click here
All rights reserved (Adv Vaibhav Tomar)