- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Radhu Napit Radha Napit v. Tarapado Napit .
Factual and Procedural Background
This writ application challenges two interlocutory orders passed in Title (Partition) Suit No. 16 of 2004 before the Sub-Judge-1st, Bokaro. The petitioner (defendant No. 1 in the partition suit) appeared in the suit on 7.1.2005 but failed to file his written statement within the period prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.). Consequently, by order dated 17.5.2005 (Annexure-1), the trial court debarred the petitioner from filing his written statement. The petitioner nonetheless filed a written statement on 17.6.2005 and moved to recall the 17.5.2005 order and for acceptance of the written statement. By order dated 19.6.2007 (Annexure-3), the trial court rejected that application on the ground that it was time-barred under Order 8 Rule 1 of the amended G.P.C. The petitioner seeks to set aside these orders by way of this writ.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the order dated 17.5.2005 debarring the petitioner from filing his written statement was valid when the petitioner failed to file within the time stipulated by Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C.
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petition dated 7.6.2005 (seeking acceptance of the written statement filed on 17.6.2005) solely on the ground that it was time-barred under Order 8 Rule 1, and whether the trial court had any discretion to accept a delayed written statement.
- If discretion existed, whether the petitioner provided sufficient and admissible explanation to justify condonation of the delay in filing the written statement.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The trial court misconstrued Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. by treating the prescribed period as mandatory with no residual discretion to the court to allow a delayed filing.
- The petitioner offered a genuine explanation for the delay: the lawyer entrusted with essential documents misplaced them, causing inability to file within the prescribed period.
Respondent's Arguments
- The trial court assigned adequate reasons in the order dated 17.5.2005 for refusing the petitioner's prayer and was justified in doing so.
- The petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain the delay before the trial court and therefore could not justify condonation of delay or acceptance of the belated written statement.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first recorded the undisputed factual position that the petitioner did not file his written statement within the period stipulated under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C., and that there was a delay of more than 60 days in filing the written statement. Given that position, the trial court was competent to pass an order debarring the petitioner from filing his written statement.
The court then analyzed the legal import of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. It observed that while the provision prescribes a specific time frame for filing written statements, that prescription does not ipso facto oust the trial court of all discretion. The court explicitly stated that the presence of a specified period in the provision "would not mean that the trial court has been left with no discretion to exercise and to allow or to accept the delayed written statement, if sufficient cause is shown by the defendants for the delay and if the interest of justice would demand the acceptance of the written statement."
However, the court emphasized that the power to condone delay and accept a belated written statement exists only in appropriate cases, and then usually subject to the imposition of reasonable conditions (the opinion notes "albeit by imposing reasonable cause (sic—cost?) upon the defendant, if the delay is satisfactorily explained"). The court evaluated the petitioner's offered explanation — that his lawyer had misplaced essential documents — and found it unsupported. The explanation was neither corroborated by an affidavit of the lawyer nor was the petitioner's statement made on oath.
In the absence of an affidavit or sworn explanation to support the asserted reason for delay, the court held that the petitioner could not reasonably expect the trial court to accept the contention and condone the delay. On that basis, the impugned orders were found to be free of error or impropriety.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED.
Direct effect: The writ application was dismissed and the impugned orders of the trial court (the order debarring the petitioner from filing a written statement dated 17.5.2005 and the order rejecting the petition to accept the late written statement dated 19.6.2007) were upheld.
Broader implications (as reflected in the opinion): The court affirmed that Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. prescribes a time frame but does not eliminate judicial discretion to condone delay in appropriate circumstances. That discretion, however, requires a satisfactory and supported explanation for delay—ideally by affidavit or oath—and may be exercised subject to the imposition of reasonable conditions (for example, costs). The opinion did not purport to lay down a new binding precedent and instead applied these principles to the facts, finding no error in the trial court's exercise of its discretion on the record before it.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this writ application is to the order dated 17.5.2005 (Arinexure-1) passed in Title (Partition) Suit No. 16 of 2004 passed by the Sub-Judge-1st, Bokaro, whereby the petitioner/defendant No. 1, had been debarred from filing bis written statement. Challenge is also to the order dated 19.6.2007 (Annexure-3) passed by the said court in the aforesaid Title (Partition) Suit, whereby the petition dated 7.6.2005 filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 1, for accepting his written statement and for recalling the earlier order dated 17.5.2005, was rejected only on the ground that it was time barred under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the amended G.P.C
3. Facts of the case stated briefly, are that the Title (Partition) Suit No. 16 of 2004 was filed by the Respondent/. Plaintiff. The present petitioner, who has been impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the suit.
4. Upon receipt of notice, the petitioner/defendant No. 1, had appeared in the Title Suit dated 7.1.2005, but he did not choose to file his written statement within the period stipulated under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CP.C On his failure to file his written statement within the period of limitation, as ehvisaged un-der the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C the trial court had passed the impugned order dated 17.5.2005 debarring the petitioner/defendant No. 1 from filing his written statement.
5. Notwithstanding such order, the petitioner filed his written statement in the Suit on 17.6.2005 alongwith a separate application, praying for acceptance of his written statement after recalling the earlier order dated 17.5.2005 By the impugned order dated 19.6.2007, the petitioner's prayer for acceptance of his written statement and for recalling the earlier order dated 17.5.2005, was rejected.
6. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed by the court below by a misconception of the import of the provisions of the Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C and by construing the same, as imposing a mandated period of limitation leaving no discretion on the part of the court to allow any extension of period.
7. Learned counsel adds that learned court below has failed to appreciate the genuine reasons stated by the petitioner for his inability to file his written statement within the period stipulated in the procedural law. The explanation offered by him was that his lawyer was entrusted with all relevant documents for drafting the written statement, but the essential documents was misplaced by the lawyer.
8. Learned counsel for the Respond ent, on the other hand, would submit that by the order dated 17.5.2005, the court below had assigned adequate reasons for refusing the prayer of the petitioner and even otherwise, the petitioner has not been able to satisfy before the court below, the reasons for the delay in filing the written statement.
9. Upon hearing the rival submis sions of the learned counsel for the par ties and on perusal of the impugned order of the court below, it appears that admit tedly, the petitioner had not filed his writ ten statement within the period stipulated under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C Rather, there appears a delay of more than 60 days in filing the written statement. In absence of the written statement being filed by the petitioner/defendant, the trial court had every competence to pass the order, de barring the petitioner from filing the written statement.
10. However, the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C do lay down a procedure and do include a specific time frame within which the defendants are to file their writ ten statements, from the date of their appearance in the Suit. This itself would not mean that the trial court has been left with no discretion to exercise and to allow or to accept the delayed written statement, if sufficient cause is shown by the defendants for the delay and if the interest of justice would demand the acceptance of the written statement.
11. The delay in filing the written statement can, therefore, be condoned by the trial court in appropriate cases and the delayed written statement can be accepted, albeit by imposing reasonable cause (sic—cost?) upon the defendant, if the delay is satisfactorily explained.
12. In the instant case as it appears, the petitioner has wanted to explain the delay in filing the written statement, on the ground that the relevant documents which are supposed to be filed, was en trusted to his lawyer who had misplaced the same. Such explanation does not ap pear to have been supported by affidavit of the lawyer concerned or even on oath by the petitioner. In absence of any support to his statement and that too, not made on affidavit, the petitioner cannot possibly expect the trial court to accept his contentions and condone the delay.
13. In the light of the above facts and circumstances and having examined the impugned orders, I do not find any error or impropriety in the impugned or ders. As such, there is no merit in this writ application and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
Alert