Provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC Directory, Not Mandatory: High Court

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, presided over by Justice Vikas Suri, held that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), are directory and not mandatory, especially in non-commercial disputes. The court granted relief to the defendants in Civil Revision No. CR-1673-2024 (O&M), setting aside an earlier order that struck off their defence for not filing a written statement within the prescribed 90-day period.

Legal Point: This judgement revolves around the interpretation of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, which deals with the filing of the written statement. The key question was whether this rule is mandatory, warranting strict compliance, or directory, allowing some discretion to the court.

Facts and Issues: The petitioners, M/s Shivalik Silica and others, sought to set aside an order that struck off their defence due to a delay in filing their written statement in a suit for recovery of Rs. 15,96,501/- with 12% interest per annum. Despite being given an opportunity to file their statement after an initial default, they failed to comply within the extended period, leading to the order in question.

Directory Nature of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC: Citing the Apex Court’s decision in Salem Bar Association vs. Union of India, it was held that the provision is directory, not mandatory, particularly in non-commercial disputes.

Balance Between Procedural Law and Justice: The court emphasized that procedural laws should aid justice, not thwart it. Striking off a defence at an early stage without considering inherent court discretion was viewed as too harsh.

Precedents and Applicability: The judgement in Desh Raj vs. Balkishan was referred to support the contention that for non-commercial disputes, the unamended provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are directory.

Discretion in Non-Commercial Disputes: The case at hand was not a commercial dispute as defined under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Thus, the court exercised its discretion to condone the delay.

Decision of the Court: The High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the impugned order and granting the petitioners one more opportunity to file their written statement, subject to payment of costs. It was made clear that no further opportunity would be given for non-compliance.

Date of Decision: April 04, 2024

M/s Shivalik Silica through its partner and others vs. Anjali Singhal