2018 (5) TMI 1919 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of 15 years and 54 days in filing written statement - Failure to refund the money or handover possession of certain flats - recovery of dues allegedly payable by the respondents to the appellant of about ₹ 11.9 crores with additional interest - HELD THAT - The circumstance which weighed with the High Court in condoning the delay was that though the suit was filed in the year 2000, summons were served only in the year 2009. Plea of the appellant that summons were actually served in the year 2000 itself was not accepted. On this basis, the High Court came to the conclusion that since appellant itself took time of 9 years after institution or following of the suit, to serve the summons upon the respondents herein, equities were balanced by allowing the respondents to file the written statement, more so, when no irreparable loss or prejudice was caused to the appellant and no case of mala fides was made out against the respondents. It has to be borne in mind that as per the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the defendant is obligated to present a written statement of his defence within thirty days from the date of service of summons. Proviso thereto enables the Court to extend the period upto ninety days from the date of service of summons for sufficient reasons - In such a situation, onus upon the defendant is of a higher degree to plead and satisfactorily demonstrate a valid reason for not filing the written statement within thirty days. This reason of the High Court that delay was condoned by balancing the rights and equities is farfetched and, in the process, abnormal delay in filing the written statement is condoned without addressing the relevant factor, viz. whether the respondents had furnished proper and satisfactory explanation for such a delay. The approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous in law and cannot be countenanced - Notice of Motion seeking condonation of delay was rejected - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the written statement.
2. Service of summons and its impact on the delay.
3. Equitable balancing of rights and procedural rules.

Detailed Analysis:

Condonation of Delay in Filing the Written Statement:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the condonation of a significant delay in filing the written statement by the respondents. The delay in question was 15 years and 54 days (or 14 years and 166 days as per the appellant). The Single Judge condoned this delay with a cost of ?5 lakhs, which was affirmed by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the High Court was justified in condoning such an inordinate delay.

Service of Summons and Its Impact on the Delay:
The High Court’s reasoning for condoning the delay was based on the fact that the writ of summons was not served on the respondents until 2009, despite the suit being filed in 2000. The High Court found that the appellant also took several years to serve the summons, thus balancing the equities by allowing the respondents to file the written statement. However, the Supreme Court noted that even if the summons were served in 2009, the respondents failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the written statement, which was more than five years and 54 days from 2009.

Equitable Balancing of Rights and Procedural Rules:
The Supreme Court emphasized that under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a written statement must be filed within thirty days from the date of service of summons, extendable up to ninety days for sufficient reasons. The Court acknowledged that while procedural rules are the handmaids of justice, they should not be disregarded, and the delay can only be condoned in exceptionally hard cases. The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s reasoning of balancing rights and equities was far-fetched and did not address whether the respondents had furnished proper and satisfactory explanations for the delay.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order of the High Court and dismissing the Notice of Motion No. 1212 of 2015. The Court underscored that procedural rules must be adhered to unless there are compelling reasons to deviate from them, and the respondents failed to provide such reasons in this case. No costs were awarded.