Source: Madras High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Madras High Court in the matter of Ramesh Flowers Private Limited v. Mr. Sumit Srimal has held the Trial Court cannot on its own extent the time limit beyond 30 days for filing of the written statement and the parties must file for condonation for seeking extension of time limits. The same would be contrary to Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). 

• The Madras High Court further added that the court has the discretion for accepting condonation of delay, but reasons must be recorded in writing for such acceptance. 

What was the Background of Ramesh Flowers Private Limited v. Mr. Sumit Srimal Case? 

• In the present case, the defendant was the former employee of the plaintiff. 
• The plaintiff alleges that the defendant is engaged in acts that are detrimental to its interests and therefore he was terminated from his post. 
• The plaintiff filed for an interim injunction to restrain defendant from continuing the same before the Trial Court. 
• The trial court issued only notice without granting ex-parte interim order. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court the petitioner filed where the interim injunction was granted. 
• Following the dispose of the interim injunction order, the defendant filed his written statement before the trial court against the order of interim injunction. 
• The Trial Court excepted the written statement, and the copy of the order attached by the defendant. 
• The petitioner filed an application rejecting the written statement which was dismissed by the court. 
• Aggrieved by the decision the Petitioner filed a revision petition before the Madras High Court questioning the acceptance of defendant’s written statement. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Madras High Court observed that: 
  • The mistake of court should not be taken as an advantage by the party. 
  • The statute has given time limits for filing of the written statements and the parties must adhere to it. 
  • The parties must provide sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay. 
  • Order VII of CPC only provides for rejection of plaint and not for rejection of written statement therefore the request of rejection of written statement cannot be admitted. 
• The Madras High Court held that: 
  • The Trial Court cannot on its own, extent the time limit beyond 30 days for filing of the written statement and the parties must file for condonation seeking extension of time limits. 
  • Reasons must be recorded by the Court for granting condonation of delay. 
  • The Court gave the defendant liberty to file for fresh written statement along with an application seeking condonation of delay. 

What is a Written Statement? 

About: 

• A written statement ordinarily means a reply to the plaint filed by the plaintiff. It is the pleading of the defendant. Order VIII of CPC contains provisions in relation to the written statement. 
• The written statement should address all material facts alleged in the plaint, either admitting or denying them specifically. 
• It may also include any counterclaims the defendant wishes to make against the plaintiff. 
• The statement should be verified by the defendant or their authorized representative. 

Order VIII of CPC: 

• Rule 1 of Order VIII deals with written statements. It states that -
  • Time Limit: 
    • The Defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defense. 
  • Extension of Time Limit by 90 Days: 
    • 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. 
    • Reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.
  • Extension of Time Limit by 120 Days: 
    • 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. 
    • 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. 
    • After expiry of such a time limit 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. 

Landmark Judgements:

• Federal Brands Ltd. v. Cosmos Premises Pvt. (2024):  
  • The Bombay High Court held that CPC does not account for the time a miscellaneous application is pending when calculating the delay in filing a written statement.  
  • This ruling impacts how courts handle delays in civil cases and ensures strict adherence to procedural deadlines. 
• Shibjee Pd. Singh v. Manju Devi & Ors. (2024):  
  • The Patna High Court has held that in its deliberation on the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the defendant is barred from belatedly amending pleadings to fill up lacunae when confronted with the document recorded in evidence. 
• Kailash v. Nankhu (2005): 
  • The Supreme Court held that the proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII of CPC is directory and permissive and not mandatory and imperative. 
• Salem Advocate Bar Assn. V. Union of India (2005): 
  • The Supreme Court clarified that under Rule 10 of Order VIII of CPC, the court has wide powers to ‘make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit.’ 
  • The order extending the time to file a written statement cannot be made routinely. The time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases.