Strict approach to delayed written statements under CPC: condonation requires a convincing explanation and exceptional circumstances.

Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is procedural, but extension of time for filing a written statement may be granted only in exceptionally hard cases on a convincing and cogent explanation for delay. Condonation of a delay of more than five years, granted merely on the basis of belated service of summons and a general balance of equities, was held legally unsustainable. The existence of a connected matter between the same parties, where condonation had already been refused on a similar explanation and that refusal had attained finality, reinforced that no contrary view was justified. The condonation was set aside and the application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the written statement could be condoned in the facts of the case under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is procedural and the Court has discretion to extend time, but such power is not to be exercised routinely and can be used only in exceptionally hard cases. The defendant must furnish a convincing and cogent explanation for delay. The High Court's approach of condoning a delay of more than five years on the footing that summons were served belatedly and by merely balancing rights and equities was held to be legally unsustainable. The record also showed that in a connected matter involving the same parties and similar explanation, condonation had been refused and that refusal had attained finality. In those circumstances, there was no justification to take a contrary view.

Conclusion: The condonation of delay was set aside and the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement was dismissed.

---