Mandatory 120-day written statement deadline under civil procedure cannot be relaxed by finality, res judicata, or inherent powers.

After the 2015 amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, the 120-day period for filing a written statement is mandatory because the amended provisions attach an express consequence of forfeiture and bar the court from taking the pleading on record after expiry. The extended period is available only for recorded reasons and costs within the statutory scheme. An earlier order allowing late filing cannot be saved by finality, res judicata, or inherent powers, because neither can override an express procedural prohibition. The principle stated is that a mandatory filing deadline with statutory forfeiture cannot be defeated by prior erroneous orders.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after the 2015 amendments, the outer limit of 120 days for filing a written statement under the Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory and the court can refuse to take the written statement on record after expiry of that period. (ii) Whether an earlier order permitting filing of the written statement beyond 120 days could be sustained on the basis of finality, res judicata, or inherent powers of the court.

Issue (i): Whether, after the 2015 amendments, the outer limit of 120 days for filing a written statement under the Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory and the court can refuse to take the written statement on record after expiry of that period.

Analysis: The amended provisions substituted in Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1, and Order VIII Rule 10 provide not merely a timeline but an express consequence of default. The defendant may be permitted to file the written statement within the extended period for recorded reasons and costs, but beyond 120 days the right stands forfeited and the court is prohibited from taking the written statement on record. The statutory scheme leaves no room for treating the provision as directory.

Conclusion: The 120-day limit is mandatory, and after expiry of that period the written statement cannot be taken on record.

Issue (ii): Whether an earlier order permitting filing of the written statement beyond 120 days could be sustained on the basis of finality, res judicata, or inherent powers of the court.

Analysis: An order passed contrary to a statutory prohibition cannot be protected merely because it was earlier made or because a party seeks to rely on finality. Res judicata does not bar correction of an erroneous decision that defeats a mandatory statutory command, and Section 151 cannot be used to override an express procedural prohibition. The later order, being founded only on supposed finality of the earlier order, could not stand.

Conclusion: The earlier order could not be sustained on finality, res judicata, or inherent powers, and both impugned orders were liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeds, and the written statement filed beyond the statutory period is directed to be taken off the record.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a procedural statute expressly prescribes forfeiture of the right to file a written statement after a fixed period and prohibits the court from taking it on record, the mandate is compulsory and cannot be defeated by res judicata or inherent powers.

---