2005 (11) TMI 466 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the trial court was right in its view that there was no scope for granting extension of time beyond the period of 90 days to file the written statement in view of the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (in short the CPC ) by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 1999 (in short the 1999 Amendment Act )?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Extension of time to file a written statement beyond the prescribed period of 90 days under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
2. Interpretation of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC as amended by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999.
3. Consequences of filing a written statement beyond the prescribed period due to court-granted extensions.
4. Application of equity maxims in procedural law.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Extension of Time to File Written Statement Beyond 90 Days:
The core issue in these appeals was whether the trial court and the High Court were correct in holding that there was no scope for granting an extension of time beyond 90 days to file the written statement, as per the amended CPC. The appellants argued that since the court had granted time until 19.2.2004, and the written statement was filed the next day due to 19.2.2004 being a holiday, the refusal to accept the written statement was untenable.

2. Interpretation of Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC:
Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC, as amended by the 1999 Amendment Act, mandates that a written statement must be filed within 30 days from the date of service of summons, extendable to 90 days. The provision aims to expedite the disposal of civil cases by curbing delays caused by defendants. However, the provision does not explicitly strip the court of its power to accept a written statement filed beyond this period, especially in extraordinary situations.

3. Consequences of Filing Beyond the Prescribed Period:
The judgment highlights that procedural laws should not obstruct justice. The court emphasized that procedural rules are meant to facilitate justice, not to act as barriers. The trial court had granted an extension beyond 90 days, and since the written statement was filed the next day due to a holiday, it should not have been rejected. The court cannot deny justice due to technicalities, especially when the delay was caused by a fortuitous circumstance.

4. Application of Equity Maxims:
The judgment invoked the maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit" (an act of court shall prejudice no man) and "lex non cogit ad impossibilia" (the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform). These maxims support the principle that procedural laws should not result in injustice. If the court mistakenly grants an extension, the party should not suffer due to the court's error. The judgment cited several precedents to support this view, including *Kailash v. Nanhku* and *Rani Kusum v. Kanchan Devi*.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders, holding that the refusal to accept the written statement was indefensible. The appeals were allowed, underscoring that procedural laws should aid justice and not hinder it, and that courts retain the discretion to accept written statements filed beyond the prescribed period in exceptional circumstances.