Bom HC | Time period fixed under Or. 8 R. 1 CPC is directory in nature; delay in filing written statement condoned

Bombay High Court: C.V. Bhadang, J., condoned a delay of 50 days in filing the written statement.

As per facts of the case, in the suit filed by the respondent, the petitioner was served the summons on 10-07-2017; and on 12-8-2017, he sought time to engage a government counsel, who was eventually appointed and put in an appearance on 05-09-2017 and sought the extension of time to file written statement. However, there was a delay of fifty days in filing the same. The petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay but it was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present appeal.

Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate appeared for the petitioner. Whereas, the respondents were represented by R.G. Ramani, Advocate.

Relying on Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480, the High Court observed, “It is now well settled that the period fixed under Rule 1 Order 8 CPC is directory in nature and in a given case where a party shows sufficient cause, the delay can be condoned.” It was noted that in the present case, a draft of the written statement was sent to the department concerned for its approval which resulted in a delay of 50 days in filing the written statement. On an overall view of the matter, the Court found that petitioner showed a sufficient cause. As such, the petitioner was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. [Executive Engineer v. Shankar Prabhakar Dalvi, WP No. 75 of 2019, dated 12-03-2019]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.