2008 (11) TMI 393 - SC - Indian Laws

Maximum filing deadlines don't bar acceptance of belated written statements when legislative intent and prejudice permit

SC set aside the High Court's order affirming the trial court's refusal to accept a written statement filed after 90 days, holding that while the ... Interpretation of statutes - Procedural law - Civil suit - Limitation for filing written statement - Rules of procedure - Objects and intention - Whether the court has any power or jurisdiction to extend the period beyond 90 days - challenged before the High Court which noted that though the view of the trial court that it had no power to accept the written statement filed after 90 days was not correct in the circumstances of the case no case for interference was made out - HELD THAT:- It has been common practice for the parties to take long adjournments for filing written statements. The legislature with a view to curb this practice and to avoid unnecessary delay and adjournments, has provided for the maximum period within which the written statement is required to be filed. The mandatory or directory nature of Order 8 Rule 1 shall have to be determined by having regard to the object sought to be achieved by the amendment. It is, thus, necessary to find out the intention of the legislature. The consequences which may follow and whether the same were intended by the legislature have also to be kept in view. In the instant case the trial court proceeded on the erroneous premises that there was no scope to accept the written statement after 90 days. The High Court by the impugned order held that though it had power, no case was made out to accept the prayer. We have considered the grounds indicated by the appellants seeking acceptance of the written statement filed belatedly. They cannot be considered to be trivial or without substance. In the case of this nature where close relatives are litigants a liberal approach is called for. In the circumstances we set aside the impugned order of the High Court affirming the order passed by the trial court refusing acceptance of the written statement. The matter is not very complex. We request the trial court to complete trial of the suit within the period of six months. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs. Issues: Whether the courts have power to accept a written statement filed beyond the period of ninety days under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and whether the order of the High Court upholding the trial court's refusal to accept the belated written statement should be set aside.Analysis: Order 8 Rule 1 prescribes a primary period of thirty days and a maximum period of ninety days for filing a written statement. The provision is procedural in nature and does not expressly extinguish the court's residual power to meet extraordinary situations in the interest of justice. Authorities and legislative materials emphasise that procedural rules are intended to facilitate justice and should, where reasonably possible, be construed to avoid defeating substantive rights. The mandatory or directory character of a time provision depends on legislative intent, object of the amendment, and consequences of strict application. Applying these principles to the facts, the trial court erred in treating the ninety-day limit as an absolute bar without considering equitable reasons; the High Court erred in refusing to interfere where grounds for acceptance of the belated written statement were not trivial and justice required a liberal approach between close relatives.Conclusion: The courts possess power to accept a written statement filed beyond ninety days in appropriate and exceptional circumstances; on the facts of the case the High Court's order affirming refusal to accept the belated written statement is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.