Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment where the Court held that the timeline for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is directory and not mandatory. 
• The Court held that the power of the Court to extend the time for filing a written statement beyond the time provided in Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC has not been taken away.  
• The Judgment was delivered by a 3- judge Bench of Supreme Court consisting of Justice RC Lahoti, Justice DM Dharmadhikari and Justice PK Balasubramanyam.   

Facts   

• Elections for the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council were held following a Presidential notification dated 7th November, 2003. 
• The appellant was declared the winner of the election. 
• Respondent No. 1 filed an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the appellant's election. 
• The appellant was served with summons and a copy of the election petition, requiring him to appear before the Court on 6th April 2004. 
• On the appointed day, the appellant appeared through his counsel and requested one month's time to file a written statement. 
• The Court granted time until 13th May 2004, for filing the written statement. 
• On 13th May 2004, the appellant filed another application seeking additional time for filing the written statement, citing the need to obtain copies of several documents. 
• The Court adjourned the hearing to  3rd July, 2004, as the High Court was closed for summer vacation from 13th May to 2nd July, 2004. 
• On 22nd June 2004, the appellant's advocate's nephew passed away, though the written statement was drafted and kept ready for filing. 
• The advocate's registered clerk was sent to file the written statement at the High Court in Allahabad from Gazipur, where the appellant and his advocate resided. 
• On 1st July 2004, two days before the hearing, the appellant's affidavit annexed with the written statement was sworn in at Allahabad. 
• Due to the clerk's lack of understanding, the written statement was not filed on 3rd  July 2004, but was instead filed on 8th  July 2004. 
• The written statement was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, briefly explaining the reasons for the late filing. 
• On 23rd August 2004, the High Court rejected the appellant's application and refused to accept the written statement because it was filed beyond the 90-day limitation period from the date of service of summons, as mandated by the proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). 
• Aggrieved by this order, the winning candidate (defendant-respondent before the High Court) filed an appeal by special leave.

Issues Involved

• Whether Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is applicable to the trial of an election petition under Chapter II of the Act? 
• Whether the rules framed by the High Court governing the trial of election petitions would override the provisions of CPC and permit a written statement being filed beyond the period prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC? 
• Is the time limit of 90 days as prescribed by the Proviso appended to Rule 1 of Order VIII of the CPC mandatory or directory in nature? 

Observations 

• Trial Includes Filing of Written Statement: The term ‘trial’ in the context of an election petition includes the stage of filing a written statement. Hence, the High Court can adjourn the trial to allow time for filing it. 
• Court Has Discretion to Extend Time: Under Section 86(6) of the Representation of the People Act and Rules 5 and 12 framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the High Court has the discretion to extend time for filing a written statement for valid reasons recorded in writing. 
• Order VIII Rule 1 is Procedural: Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which sets a timeline for filing written statements, is a procedural provision and not part of substantive law. 
• Provision is Directory, Not Mandatory: Despite the negative language used in Order VIII Rule 1, the Court held that the provision is directory in nature. It aims to ensure speedy disposal but does not create an absolute bar. 
• Court Not Rendered Powerless: Even after the 90-day limit prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1, the Court is not powerless to accept a written statement if it deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice. 
• No Penal Consequences Specified: The rule does not lay down specific penal consequences for failure to file the written statement within 90 days. 
• Rule Meant to Expedite, Not Deny Justice: The purpose of the rule is to expedite the trial and not to defeat the ends of justice or to penalize the defendant unfairly. 
• Exceptional Circumstances Allow Extension: The Court can permit filing beyond the 90-day limit in exceptional cases where delay is due to reasons beyond the defendant’s control and where denial would cause grave injustice. 
• Routine Extensions Not Allowed: Extension of time should not be granted routinely or merely on request. Reasons must be recorded and justified. 
• Flexibility in Election Petitions: In election petitions, procedural rules from CPC apply flexibly and are not to be rigidly followed, as per Section 87(1) of the Representation of the People Act. 
• Court Can Permit Late Filing with Costs: In the present case, the High Court wrongly believed it had no power to allow late filing. The Supreme Court held the written statement should be accepted upon payment of Rs. 5000 as costs to the respondent. 
• Written Statement Accepted: The written statement filed by the appellant was directed to be taken on record, subject to payment of costs within 4 weeks. 

Conclusion 

• The Supreme Court held that the 90-day timeline under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is directory, not mandatory, and courts have discretion to permit delays in exceptional cases. 
• The ruling balances the need for expeditious trials with the broader interests of justice.