Supreme Court emphasizes procedural rules, dismisses motion due to delay in filing written statement

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision to condone a 15-year delay in filing a written statement, emphasizing adherence to procedural rules. Despite delays in serving summons, the Court found the respondents' explanation unsatisfactory and dismissed the motion. Procedural rules must be followed unless exceptional reasons exist.

---

---

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 Rs. 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.

---