Lack of cogent reasons to justify delay, cavalier attitude towards timelines strikes off right to file Written Statement: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday emphasised that failure to give cogent reasons for delay and non-adherence of prescribed timelines will strike off the right to file the Written Statement in terms of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)..While passing a judgment to this effect, the Bench of CJI SA Bobde and Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant observed,.Routine condonations and cavalier attitudes towards the process of law affects the administration of justice. It affects docket management of Courts and causes avoidable delays, cost escalations and chaos.Supreme Court."The effect of this is borne not only by the litigants, but also commerce in the country and the public in general who spend decades mired in technical processes", the Bench added..Issue(s) involved in the caseThe central issue was whether the timeline of 90 days for filing written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC was merely procedural and directory for non-commercial suits?.Facts of the caseThe appellant and respondent were brothers and owned one floor each of the ancestral property in Devli Village, Delhi..The respondent approached the appellant offering to purchase his share of the property and a sale agreement was entered into between the parties on March 17, 2017 for a total consideration of Rs. 7.5 lakhs. Earnest money had also been paid to the appellant but the agreement was subsequently not honored..In light of the above, the respondent approached the Civil Court praying for a decree of specific performance of the sale agreement dated March 17, 2017, along with an application for permanent injunction praying that for a stay on alienating the property to a third party..The appellant was served on May 1, 2017, after which he appeared through counsel on May 15, 2017, wherein he was granted to file his written statement within 30 days..The court gave multiple opportunities to the Appellant to file his written statement, but he failed to do so. Despite several opportunities (including one beyond the maximum period of 90 days), the appellant failed to file any written statement. In fact, on November 3, 2017, the Trial Court closed the appellant’s right to file written statement and struck off his defence after the appellant failed to appear on the said date..Aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the appellant filed a Revision petition in the High court wherein the petition was dismissed. The High court held that in light of Oku Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. Sangeet Agwarwal & Others, there was no discretion with courts to extend the time for filing the written statement beyond 120 days after service of summons..Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal, averring that the deadline of 90 days in terms of the unamnded Order VIII Rule 1, CPC could be relaxed, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. He contended that it would be prejudicial to the appellant if the delay in filing written statement is not condoned..DecisionThe Court held that unamended order VIII Rule I CPC was indeed directory and did not do away with the inherent discretion of the courts to condone certain delays. However, the provision could not be interpreted to bestow a free hand to any litigant or lawyer to file a written statement at their own whim..Timelines were provided in the legislations in order to resolve disputes in a time bound manner. Extreme hardships and delays occuring due to factors beyond control of the parties would be the only just and equitable instances for the condonation of delay, the Bench observed..The Court went on to hold that the facts pertaining to the present case only pointed towards a blatant lapse on the part of Appellant. No reasoned justification or explanation was given by the appellant..In light of the above, the court observed that it was the duty of the judicial system to cultivate a culture of respecting deadlines as “routine condonations & cavalier attitudes towards the process of law affects administration of justice.”.While the Court observed that the appeal was liable to be dismissed in light of the above, it adopted a lenient view of the unique circumstances of the case. Therefore, without setting a precedent, the Court directed the appellant to place his 2017 written statement on record, subject to payment of Rs. 25,000/-..[Read the Judgment]