Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

allowed

Judges
  • Justice Hemant Gupta
  • Justice V. Ramasubramanian
Acts
  • Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, Commercial Court Act, 2015
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

allowed

Judges
  • Justice Hemant Gupta
  • Justice V. Ramasubramanian
Acts
  • Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, Commercial Court Act, 2015
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent–plaintiff filed a suit for injunction. The petitioner–defendant filed his written statement 193 days late. The trial court apparently accepted the delay, but on 12-08-2021 the High Court of Delhi refused to condone it, thereby striking the written statement from the record. The petitioner sought special leave from the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s refusal to accept the delayed filing.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether, in a non-commercial civil suit, the delay of 193 days in filing a written statement can be condoned notwithstanding the time limits set out in Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Kailash v. Nankhu, (2005) 4 SCC 480 The time limit for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory, not mandatory, in civil suits not governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court relied on this decision to hold that the High Court should have exercised discretion to condone the 193-day delay, possibly with costs, rather than reject the written statement outright.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

1. The Court first noted that the suit for injunction is not governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; therefore the stricter statutory timeline for filing written statements in commercial matters did not apply.
2. Invoking its own precedent in Kailash v. Nankhu, the Court reiterated that the 90-day period (extendable to 120 days) in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory, not mandatory, in ordinary civil suits.
3. Consequently, the delay of 193 days could have been addressed by imposing appropriate costs rather than denying the defendant the opportunity to place his written statement on record.
4. Finding the High Court’s refusal “unreasonable,” the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the already-filed written statement be taken on record.
5. Given the advanced age of the plaintiff, the Court further urged the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal is allowed; the High Court’s order dated 12-08-2021 is set aside; the defendant’s written statement is directed to be taken on record.

Implications: The decision reinforces the discretionary nature of the timeline in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for non-commercial suits, confirming that courts may condone delays beyond 120 days where justice so requires, typically by imposing costs. No new legal principle was announced, but the ruling clarifies that an outright rejection of a late written statement in such contexts is disfavoured.

Show full summary ...

    Bharat Kalra (S) v. Raj Kishan Chabra (S).

    1. Leave granted.

    2. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court on 12.08.2021 whereby delay of 193 days in filing of the written statement was not condoned.

    3. Admittedly, the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff is not the one which is governed by the Commercial Court Act, 2015. Therefore, the time limit for filing of the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory in view of the judgment of this Court reported as ‘Kailash v. Nankhu’ reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480.

    4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we find that the delay in filing of the written statement could very well be compensated with costs but denying the benefit of filing of the written statement is unreasonable.

    5. Consequently, we allow the present appeal. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. The written statement already filed is taken on record.

    6. We do hope that the trial Court shall expedite the decision of the suit keeping in view the old age of the plaintiff.

    7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

    Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 63/2022

    (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-08-2021 in CMM No. 429/2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)

    Bharat Kalra.….Petitioner(s)
    Versus
    Raj Kishan Chabra.….Respondent(s)

    (IA No. 698/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

    Date : 09-05-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

    (Before Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.)

    For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gaurav Kumar Dalal, Adv.

    Mr. Pradeep Teotia, Adv.

    Mr. Ashok Bannidinni, AOR

    For Respondent(s) Mr. Shrey Ashat, Adv.

    Ms. Preetika Mishra, Adv.

    Mr. Vikrant Mehta, Adv.

    Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR

    UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

    8. Leave granted.

    9. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

    10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Bharat Kalra (S) v. Raj Kishan Chabra (S).
    (May 9, 2022)