In CR-2577-2022 – PUNJ HC – O8R1 CPC is directory but Courts’ discretion must be exercised for condoning delay in WS filing after exercising due circumspection; if defendant engages in dilatory tactics, Courts should nip same unhesitatingly: P&H HC Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul [11-07-2022]

Read Order: Jagdish Singh and Another  v. Jagmeet Singh and Others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, July 12, 2022: While dealing with a revision petition assailing the correctness of the Trial Court order whereby defence of the defendants was struck off for not filing their written statement even after being given multiple opportunities, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held:

“The provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC no doubt are directory in nature, however, at the same time the Courts must exercise their discretion to condone the delay, if any, in filing the written statement after exercising due circumspection and in case there appears to be an attempt on the part of the defendant to engage in dilatory tactics, the Courts should nip the same unhesitatingly.”

While imposing costs, the Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul allowed the revision in order to prevent the “miscarriage of justice“.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court whereby the defence of the defendants in a civil suit was struck off, the instant revision petition was filed by the petitioners.

As per the case set out by the Counsel for the petitioners, on receipt of summons in the suit for recovery instituted by the plaintiff, the petitioners put in an appearance and thereafter adjournment was sought, however, they failed to file a written statement and reply to the stay application.

It was the case of the Counsel that since the trial was still at the initial stage as evidence was yet to commence, it would not in any manner adversely affect the progress of the trial in case one last effective opportunity was granted to the petitioners to file their written statement.

After hearing the Counsel and perusing the material on record, the Court opined at the very outset that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 are undoubtedly directory in nature, however, at the same time the Courts must exercise their discretion to condone the delay, if any, in filing the written statement after exercising due circumspection and in case there appears to be an attempt on the part of the defendant to engage in dilatory tactics, the Courts should nip the same unhesitatingly.

Further, averting to the case at hand, the Court observed that the petitioners were granted several opportunities to file their written statement, however, they failed to do so.

However, having said so, Justice Kaul was also of the opinion that if the petitioners were not granted one more opportunity to file their written statement, they would suffer irreparable loss which in turn would result in miscarriage of justice.

Therefore, for just and proper adjudication of the case, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant one last effective opportunity to the petitioners to file their written statement.

Accordingly, without issuing notice to the respondent, to avoid any further delay as well as expenses, the impugned order was set aside and the instant revision petition was allowed subject to the payment of Rs. 2,500/- as cost by the petitioners in favour of the plaintiff.

The petitioners were granted one last effective opportunity to file their written statement. But, in case of default, the Court directed against adjourning the matter any further for filing of their written statement and their defence was directed to be struck off.