TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is mandatory or directory, and whether the court can accept a written statement filed beyond the outer limit of ninety days; (ii) Whether the High Court's orders interfered with the trial court's acceptance of the delayed written statement were sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is mandatory or directory, and whether the court can accept a written statement filed beyond the outer limit of ninety days.
Analysis: The provision was introduced to expedite civil trials and curb dilatory tactics, but it remained a procedural rule and did not expressly provide that the court would become powerless to receive a written statement beyond ninety days in every case. Procedural law is meant to advance justice, not to defeat it, and a provision framed in negative language is not necessarily mandatory in all situations. The object of the rule, the absence of an express consequence barring acceptance, and settled principles that procedure is the handmaid of justice justified a directory construction in an exceptional case.
Conclusion: Order VIII Rule 1 is directory, and the court may accept a written statement filed beyond ninety days where the circumstances justify such acceptance.
Issue (ii): Whether the High Court's orders interfered with the trial court's acceptance of the delayed written statement were sustainable.
Analysis: The trial court had already granted time that extended beyond the ninety-day period, and the written statement had in fact been filed within the time so granted. In the circumstances, the equitable principles that an act of the court should prejudice no one and that the law does not compel impossibilities supported restoration of the trial court's course.
Conclusion: The High Court's orders were unsustainable and were set aside.
Final Conclusion: The delayed written statement was directed to be taken on record, and the appellants obtained relief against the High Court's interference.
Ratio Decidendi: A procedural provision fixing a time limit for filing a written statement is ordinarily directory, and the court retains discretion in exceptional circumstances to accept a delayed filing in furtherance of justice.
TaxTMI 
