2008 (12) TMI 802 - SC - Indian Laws

Principles of natural justice - Application filed under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure rejected - orders passed by the trial Court as also the Revisional Court without assigning any reason therefor. HELD THAT - Provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure having been held to be directory in nature by this Court in Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. 2005 (4) TMI 542 - SUPREME COURT this Court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The matter was yet again considered by a three-judge Bench of this Court in R.N. Jadi Brothers and Ors. v. Subhashchandra 2007 (7) TMI 662 - SUPREME COURT held that; It is necessary to emphasise that the grant of extension of time beyond 30 days is not automatic that it should be exercised with caution and for adequate reasons and that an extension of time beyond 90 days of the service of summons must be granted only based on a clear satisfaction of the justification for granting such extension the court being conscious of the fact that even the power of the court for extension inhering in Section 148 of the Code has also been restricted by the legislature. It would be proper to encourage the belief in litigants that the imperative of Order 8 Rule 1 must be adhered to and that only in rare and exceptional case will the breach thereof will be condoned. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of this Court we are of the opinion that the High Court should not have allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent particularly when both the learned trial judge as also the Revisional Court had assigned sufficient and cogent reasons in support of their orders. The High Court allowed the writ petition and thereby set aside the orders passed by the trial Court as also the Revisional Court without assigning any reason therefor. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. It could have set aside the orders passed by the ld trial Court and the Revisional Court only on limited ground namely illegality irrationality and procedural impropriety. The High Court did not arrive at a finding that there had been a substantial failure of justice or the orders passed by the trial Court as also by the Revisional Court contained error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by a superior Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to validity of trial court's order rejecting written statement filing delay, Applicability of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged a High Court judgment questioning the validity of a trial court's order rejecting a delay in filing a written statement. The trial court allowed the plaintiff to examine witnesses as the defendants failed to file a written statement within the specified time.

2. The main contention was the interpretation of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates the defendant to file a written statement within 30 days, extendable to 90 days for valid reasons. The Supreme Court clarified that the provision is directory but extensions should be granted sparingly, only in exceptional situations.

3. The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments like Kailash v. Nanhku and M. Srinivasa Prasad v. Comptroller & Auditor General of India, emphasizing the need for courts to exercise caution in granting extensions beyond the stipulated period. The Court highlighted that delays in the legal process should be curtailed to uphold justice.

4. The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was also scrutinized. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should only interfere with lower court orders on limited grounds like illegality or procedural impropriety, not merely due to disagreement with the decision.

5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, stating that it failed to show a substantial failure of justice or errors warranting intervention. The appeal was allowed, and the respondents were permitted to withdraw the deposited costs. The decision emphasized the importance of adherence to legal timelines to prevent undue delays in the judicial process.