MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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