Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Courts should not routinely extend deadlines; reasons must be recorded for delay in filing written statements: Madras High Court

01 October 2024 1:27 PM

By: sayum


Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in Ramesh Flowers Private Limited v. Sumit Srimal, ruled that courts cannot automatically extend deadlines for filing written statements beyond the 30-day limit prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Justice G.R. Swaminathan emphasized that any delay must be supported by a formal application, offering proper explanations, and the court must record reasons before condoning the delay.

Ramesh Flowers Private Limited, the petitioner, had filed a suit against its former employee, Sumit Srimal, for acts allegedly detrimental to the company's interests. The respondent, Sumit Srimal, filed his written statement beyond the 90-day limit without applying for condonation of delay, prompting the petitioner to seek the rejection of the written statement.

The central question was whether the trial court could accept a delayed written statement without a formal application and whether the defendant could benefit from the court's adjournments in violation of procedural rules.

Justice Swaminathan ruled that filing a written statement beyond the 30-day limit requires a written application seeking condonation of delay, with proper reasons provided. He cautioned that courts must avoid routinely extending deadlines, as this undermines the legislative intent of time-bound civil procedures.

"The court's discretion to condone delays must not nullify the statutory deadlines set under Order 8 Rule 1."

The Court emphasized that allowing automatic extensions without justification would defeat the purpose of timely dispute resolution, particularly in commercial matters.

The Court set aside the trial court’s order accepting the delayed written statement, directing the defendant to file a formal application for condonation of delay. This ruling reinforces the principle that deadlines in civil litigation must be respected, and delays should only be condoned for valid, documented reasons.

Date of Decision: September 13, 2024

Ramesh Flowers Private Limited v. Sumit Srimal​.

Latest Legal News