Written statement delay and ex parte relief require sufficient cause; prolonged unexplained delay defeats reopening of the case.

The Orissa HC held that the time for filing a written statement is procedural and may be extended only in exceptional cases on proof of good cause or sufficient cause. Here, the petitioner relied on an alleged assurance that the claim would be withdrawn, but that assertion was denied and no credible explanation was offered for a delay of about twelve years or for non-appearance. On those facts, the Court found that the petitioner had not satisfied the standard for reopening the ex parte position, so the ex parte order was not set aside and acceptance of the written statement was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ex parte order could be set aside and the written statement accepted after a delay of about twelve years on the ground shown by the petitioner.

Analysis: The petition rested on the asserted assurance that the claim against the petitioner would be withdrawn, but that stand was denied. No other ground explaining the long delay was shown. The Court treated the time prescribed for filing written statement as procedural and capable of extension in exceptional cases, but held that such indulgence requires a demonstrated good cause or sufficient cause. On the facts, the unexplained delay of twelve years and the absence of a credible explanation for non-appearance meant that the petitioner failed to satisfy that standard.

Conclusion: The ex parte order was not liable to be set aside and the request for acceptance of the written statement was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because no sufficient cause was established to justify interference with the trial court's refusal to reopen the ex parte position.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may extend the time for filing a written statement as an exception, but an ex parte order will not be set aside after prolonged delay unless good cause or sufficient cause for non-appearance is satisfactorily proved.

---