Unamended Order VIII Rule 1 CPC Directory, Not Mandatory in Non-Commercial Suits: P&H High Court Grants Opportunity to File Written Statement Subject to Costs
In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed a revision petition challenging the striking off of a defense due to the non-filing of a written statement in a non-commercial suit, emphasizing the discretionary nature of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC in such cases. The decision, pronounced by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin, underscores the distinction between procedural requirements in commercial and non-commercial disputes.
Legal Point of Judgement: Directory Nature of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC in Non-Commercial Suits
In the case titled Harshanjit Singh (Since Deceased) Through His LRS vs. Satpal, the High Court delved into the applicability of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, postulating its directory rather than mandatory nature in non-commercial suits. This comes in light of the petitioners’ plea to file their written statement after it was struck off by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur.
Facts and Issues of the Case
The petitioners, represented by Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate, sought permission to file a written statement, which they had failed to do within the 90-day period prescribed, leading to their defense being struck off. The respondent, represented by Mr. Rahul Arora, Advocate, opposed the plea, arguing that the petitioners had already been provided sufficient opportunities.
Court’s Assessment and Decision
Justice Alka Sarin referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Desh Raj vs. Balkishan [(2020) RCR (Civil) 807], which distinguished the filing timelines for written statements in commercial and non-commercial disputes. The Court observed that “Unamended Order VIII Rule I, CPC continues to be directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of Courts to condone certain delays.”
Consequently, the High Court permitted the petitioners one more opportunity to file their written statement by 28.03.2024, conditional upon the payment of Rs.30,000/- as costs to the respondent. This payment was set as a precondition for the filing of the written statement.
Conclusion and Disposition
The petition was disposed of with the direction for filing the written statement and the payment of costs. All pending applications related to this case were also disposed of.
Date of Decision: 22.03.2024
Harshanjit Singh (Since Deceased) Through His LRS vs. Satpal
