90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Striking Off Defence Must Not Be an Automatic Consequence — Delay Alone Is Not Fatal Where Justice Demands Adjudication on Merits”, On December 10, 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh delivered a crucial ruling interpreting the scope of Order VIII Rule 1 and Rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 holding that the time limit for replying to a counter-claim is directory, not mandatory, and that courts retain the discretion to condone delay if circumstances justify.

Justice Virinder Aggarwal underscored a central tenet of civil procedure, observing that “It is well-settled in law that the period of 90 days is not sacrosanct, and the Court may permit filing of the reply beyond 90 days if sufficient cause is shown and the delay is attributable to circumstances beyond the party’s control.” The Court intervened after a Trial Court struck off the petitioner’s defence for failing to file a reply to the counter-claim and replication, despite the petitioner’s assertion that she had been denied adequate opportunity.

The dispute arose in a civil suit for permanent injunction, where the respondents not only filed their written statement but also raised a counter-claim seeking declaration and injunction. The plaintiff, Krishna Devi, failed to file her reply to the counter-claim within the prescribed time and also omitted to file a replication to the written statement, prompting the Trial Court to strike off her defence on March 14, 2023.

While noting that the petitioner failed to offer any “cogent or convincing reason” for the delay, the High Court found fault in the manner in which the Trial Court exercised its jurisdiction. Justice Aggarwal observed that “no illegality or infirmity can be found in the reasoning of the Court below, except for the fact that the order was passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Samalkha, whereas it should have been passed by the Civil Judge having jurisdiction over the suit.”

The Court observed that the procedural irregularity, coupled with the irreversible prejudice of having the defence struck off, warranted limited indulgence. Justice Aggarwal clarified that “In the interest of justice, the petitioner is granted one opportunity to file the reply to the counter-claim and the replication to the written statement.”

However, the Court was not inclined to overlook the lapse without consequence. A cost of ₹50,000 was imposed as a condition precedent for filing the delayed reply — ₹20,000 to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Panipat, and ₹30,000 payable to the defendants/respondents. The Court made it clear that this indulgence was not a precedent to be misused but a measured correction in the face of procedural error and disproportionate prejudice.

Justice Aggarwal’s ruling brings renewed clarity to the judicial understanding of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, particularly in the context of counter-claims, which are to be treated as independent plaints, triggering the same procedural responsibilities. But more importantly, the Court reaffirmed the discretionary power of courts to go beyond procedural rigidity in the service of substantive justice, provided parties are held accountable.

Emphasizing this principle, the Court concluded that “The matter warrants appropriate consideration as the petitioner has been prejudiced, and she is now ready with her written reply.” The revision petition was accordingly disposed of, and the impugned order stood modified to enable the reply, but only upon compliance with the cost directions.

The ruling is a reminder that rules of procedure are handmaidens of justice, not its master, and that striking off a party’s defence should not be the default consequence for delay, especially where the party expresses readiness to comply, and no malafide intent is shown.

Date of Decision: 10 December 2025