IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process

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​.

Similar News