Election petition procedure: written statement deadline under Order VIII Rule 1 is directory and may be extended for recorded reasons.

In election petitions, the Code of Civil Procedure applies only subject to the Representation of the People Act, the rules made under it, and the High Court rules governing procedure. Order VIII Rule 1 therefore operates in a qualified manner, and the trial court may follow the special election law framework where it covers the field. The time limit for filing a written statement under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 is directory, not mandatory, so the court retains discretion to accept a delayed written statement for recorded reasons in exceptional cases to avoid grave injustice. The written statement could accordingly be taken on record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies to the trial of an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951; (ii) whether the High Court rules governing election petitions prevail over the Code and permit filing of a written statement beyond the period prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1; (iii) whether the time limit in the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 is mandatory or directory.

Issue (i): Whether Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies to the trial of an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: The procedure for election petitions is controlled first by the Act and the rules made under it, and only thereafter by the procedure applicable to suits under the Code. The expression "as nearly as may be" in Section 87(1) shows that the Code does not apply with full rigidity. The trial of an election petition begins on receipt of the petition and includes the filing of pleadings, so the stage for filing a written statement forms part of the trial; however, the Code operates only subject to the special statutory scheme.

Conclusion: Order VIII Rule 1 is applicable only in a flexible and qualified manner and not as an inflexible controlling rule.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court rules governing election petitions prevail over the Code and permit filing of a written statement beyond the period prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1.

Analysis: Section 87(1) makes the Code subject to the Act and rules made thereunder, and the High Court's procedural rules framed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India regulate the conduct of election petitions. Where the Act, the rules under it, and the High Court rules cover the field, they prevail over the Code. The High Court rules authorise the court to issue directions on practice and procedure, including fixing and extending the time for filing a written statement.

Conclusion: The High Court rules prevail over the Code to the extent of inconsistency, and the court can extend time for filing the written statement.

Issue (iii): Whether the time limit in the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 is mandatory or directory.

Analysis: Order VIII Rule 1 is a procedural provision intended to expedite disposal, not to defeat adjudication on merits. It does not create substantive rights, does not prescribe penal consequences for non-compliance, and must be read in the context of justice-oriented procedure. The prescribed schedule ordinarily has to be followed, but in exceptional cases the court retains discretion to accept a belated written statement for recorded reasons, particularly where refusal would cause grave injustice.

Conclusion: The proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 is directory, not mandatory.

Final Conclusion: The written statement could be taken on record, the High Court's refusal to do so was incorrect, and the appeal succeeded with costs imposed in the court below.

Ratio Decidendi: In election petitions, the Code of Civil Procedure applies only subject to the special statutory scheme and High Court rules, and a procedural time limit for filing a written statement is directory where the court retains discretion to extend time in exceptional cases for reasons recorded in writing.

---