Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

The Justice Bharat P. Deshpande clarifies that the Civil Procedure Code,1908 (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.

• The Bombay High Court held this in the case of Federal Brands Ltd. v. Cosmos Premises Pvt.

What was the Background of Federal Brands Ltd. v. Cosmos Premises Pvt. Ltd?

• The petitioner (defendant) received a summons from the Trial Court on 18^th August, 2022, in a suit filed by the respondent (plaintiff).
• The defendant initially sought and was granted an extension of time to file a written statement.
• Instead of filing the written statement, the defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for rejection of the plaint on 5^th November 2022.
• The Trial Court heard and rejected this application on 9^th February 2023.
• Following the rejection, the defendant filed an application for condonation of delay on 3^rd March, 2023, along with a written statement to be taken on record.
• An additional affidavit supporting the delay application was filed on 27^th June, 2023.
• The Trial Court rejected the delay application on 11^th December, 2023.
• The defendant claimed that their in-house advocate had advised that filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC negated the need to file a written statement until the application was decided.
• The defendant also argued that the period during which the Order VII Rule 11 application was pending (from 3^rd November 2022, to 9^th February, 2023) should be excluded when calculating the delay.
• Based on this calculation, the defendant claimed the delay in filing the written statement was only 14 days.
• The defendant challenged the Trial Court's rejection of the delayed application in the present petition before the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

Court’s Observations

• The CPC does not provide for any exclusion or extension of the time period for filing a written statement while a miscellaneous application is pending.
• Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC requires a written statement to be filed within 30 days of receiving summons, with a possible extension up to 90 days for reasons recorded in writing by the court.
• The court noted that the defendant could have easily filed the written statement along with the application for rejection of the plaint.
• The High Court found that the defendant's calculation of delay was based on an incorrect presumption, as there is no provision for excluding the time an Order VII Rule 11 application was pending.
• The court observed that the written statement was filed after a delay of 160 days, not 14 days as the defendant claimed.
• The High Court emphasized that ignorance of law or incorrect advice is not sufficient grounds for condonation of delay.
• The court noted that blaming an in-house advocate without giving them an opportunity to defend or explain is not proper.

Grounds Sought for Condonation of Delay:

• The defendant claimed that their in-house advocate had advised that filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC negated the need to file a written statement until the application was decided.
• The defendant argued that the period during which the Order VII Rule 11 application was pending should be excluded when calculating the delay.
• The petitioner contended that if the Order VII Rule 11 application had been allowed, there would have been no need to file a written statement at all.
• The defendant asserted that the necessity to file the written statement arose only after the rejection of Order VII Rule 11 application.
• Based on their calculation excluding the period of the pending application, the defendant claimed the actual delay in filing the written statement was only 14 days.
• The petitioner argued that they had a strong case in their defense and would suffer serious prejudice if denied the opportunity to file a written statement.
• The defendant expressed willingness to deposit costs for the condonation of delay and argued that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff/respondent by allowing the delay to be condoned.

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 the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) contains provisions related to written statements.
• A written statement under the CPC 1908 is
  • A formal response filed by the defendant to the plaintiff's claim or plaint.
  • It usually contains the defendant's version of facts, any denials of the plaintiff's allegations, and legal defenses.
  • It's typically filed within 30 days of the defendant receiving the summons, though this time frame can be extended in certain circumstances.
  • 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.

What are Legal Provisions Involved?

• Rule 11 Order VII deals with Rejection of Plaint.
  • Grounds for Rejection of Plaint:
    • The Court shall reject a plaint under the following circumstances:

(a) Where the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action;

(b) Where the plaintiff, upon being directed by the Court to correct an undervaluation of relief within a specified timeframe, fails to comply with such direction;

(c) Where, despite proper valuation of relief, the plaint is filed on insufficiently stamped paper, and the plaintiff, when ordered by the Court to furnish the requisite stamp-paper within a prescribed period, fails to do so;

(d) Where it is apparent from the pleadings that the suit is barred by operation of law;

(e) Where the plaint is not filed in duplicate;

(f) Where the plaintiff fails to adhere to the provisions set forth in rule 9.

• Provided that the Court shall not extend the time limit fixed for correction of valuation or submission of requisite stamp-paper unless:

(i) The Court is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the plaintiff was prevented from complying with the Court's direction within the specified time due to exceptional circumstances; and

(ii) The Court determines that a refusal to grant such extension would result in grave injustice to the plaintiff.

• Rule 1 of Order VIII deals with written statements.
  • Filing Deadline: The defendant is required to submit their written statement of defense within 30 days from the date they are served with the summons.
  • Extension of Time: If the defendant fails to file within the initial 30-day period, the Court may grant an extension.
  • Reasons for Extension: Any extension must be for reasons recorded in writing by the Court.
  • Maximum Extension: The Court can extend the deadline up to a maximum of 120 days from the date of service of summons.
  • Costs for Late Filing: If an extension is granted, the Court may impose costs on the defendant as it deems appropriate.
  • Absolute Deadline: Under no circumstances can the written statement be filed after 120 days from the date of service of summons.
  • Forfeiture of Right: If the defendant fails to file the written statement within 120 days, they forfeit their right to file it altogether.
  • Court's Discretion: After the 120-day period expires, the Court is prohibited from allowing the written statement to be taken on record.