2007 (7) TMI 662 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The controversy revolves around the acceptance of a written statement filed beyond the stipulated 90 days from the date of service of summons, as per Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The main issue is whether the provision is mandatory or directory.

Judgment Details:

Issue 1 - Acceptance of Written Statement Beyond 90 Days:
The appellants were issued summons by the trial Court but failed to file the written statement within 90 days, resulting in a delay of two days. The trial Court accepted the written statement despite objections from the plaintiff. The Karnataka High Court allowed a Writ Petition challenging this decision, stating that Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC was mandatory. A review petition was dismissed by the High Court, leading to the current appeal.

Issue 2 - Interpretation of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC:
The amended Order VIII Rule 1 requires the defendant to file the written statement within 30 days, extendable to 90 days by the Court. The provision aims to expedite case disposal and prevent dilatory tactics. The Court emphasized that procedural laws should serve justice and not hinder it, with the intention of the legislature being crucial in determining whether a provision is mandatory or directory.

Issue 3 - Judicial Discretion and Equitable Considerations:
The Court highlighted the importance of judicial discretion in exceptional cases to prevent injustice. It cited precedents emphasizing that procedural laws should facilitate justice and not become obstacles. The maxims of equity, including "actus curiae neminem gravabit" and "lex non cogit ad impossibilia," were deemed applicable to ensure fairness in legal proceedings.

Conclusion:
In light of the above considerations, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and directed the trial Court to consider the already filed written statement. The appeal was allowed without any costs being imposed.