Trial Courts Can’t Extend Time For Filing Written Statement On Their Own; Can Be Done Only On Defendant’s Written Request: Madras HC
|The Madras High Court observed that the Trial Courts shall not on their own extend the time for filing the written statement after the expiry of thirty (30) days and that the same can be done only at the request of the defendant.
The Madurai Bench was dealing with a civil revision petition preferred against the order of the 1st Additional District and Sessions Court.
A Single Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan observed, “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 defendant must submit an application and offer proper explanation for the delay.”
Senior Advocate J. Sivanandaraaj appeared for the petitioner while Advocate P. Sunil appeared for the respondent.
In this case, a suit was filed by the plaintiff (petitioner) and the defendant (respondent) was a former employee of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was terminated from service on April 8, 2022 and it was alleged that the defendant was engaged in acts that were detrimental to its interests. Hence, a suit was instituted to restrain him from doing so. The plaintiff sought interim injunction against him and the Trial Court issued only notice without granting ex-parte interim order.
Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed a revision petition and an interim injunction was initially granted. After the said petition was disposed of, the defendant filed a memo by enclosing the order copy along with his written statement. The Trial Court took the written statement on file and thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application for rejection of the written statement. However, the said application was dismissed and questioning the same, the plaintiff was before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “The trial court must bear in mind the caution administered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salem Bar Association, Kailash vs. Nanhku and Desh Raj v. Balkishan. 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 noted that, as per Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the written statement should be filed within thirty days from the date of service of summons on the defendant and the proviso to the Rule permits the defendant 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 Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. UOI (2005) 6 SCC 344, it was clarified that the upper limit of ninety days is directory. This provision has engaged the attention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts during the last two decades. It, however, appears that the practice of the trial courts is not in consonance with the principles laid down”, it added.
Coming back to the facts of the case, the Court elucidated that Order 7 Rule 11 CPC provides for rejection of plaint and there is no provision for rejection of written statement. It further noted that the question of invoking inherent jurisdiction for this purpose does not arise.
“The observation of the court below in this regard is well founded. However, as already held, the reception of the written statement is not in order. Once it is held that the order dated 02.08.2023 is liable to be set aside, the petition for rejection of written statement becomes infructuous”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and granted liberty to the respondent-defendant to file his written statement along with a petition for condonation of delay.
Cause Title- Ramesh Flowers Private Limited v. Sumit Srimal
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate J. Sivanandaraaj, Advocates S. Karthik Ramaswamy, and M. Dinesh Hari Sudarsan.
Respondent: Advocates P. Sunil and C. Ravichandran.