Supreme Court's Evolving Stance on Condoning Delays in Filing Written Statements
The Supreme Court of India has consistently provided clarity on the issue of condoning delays in filing written statements, especially in the context of civil suits and commercial disputes. The interpretation revolves around procedural laws like the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Here are some landmark judgments that have shaped the legal landscape in this area:
1. Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 480
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the time limit prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC for filing a written statement is directory, not mandatory. The Court emphasized that while procedural laws are meant to advance justice, they should not be interpreted to defeat the cause of justice. However, the Court also cautioned that delays should not be condoned routinely without sufficient cause.
2. Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344
This judgment reinforced the principles laid down in Kailash. The Court observed that procedural rules should be construed liberally to prevent injustice. It clarified that courts have the discretion to condone delays beyond the stipulated period, provided there are genuine reasons supported by proper evidence.
3. SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2019) 12 SCC 210
In the context of commercial disputes governed by the Commercial Courts Act, the Supreme Court took a stricter stance. The Court held that the time period of 120 days prescribed for filing a written statement is mandatory. Post the expiry of this period, the right to file a written statement stands forfeited, and courts have no power to condone the delay.
4. M/s. OK Play India Limited v. M/s. Rasik Plast Ltd. & Anr. (2022)
This case reaffirmed the strict interpretation adopted in commercial disputes. The Court reiterated that procedural timelines under the Commercial Courts Act aim to ensure expeditious disposal of cases. The mandatory nature of the timeline was upheld, emphasizing the need for discipline in commercial litigation.
5. Desh Raj v. Balkishan (D) Through Proposed LRs. (2020) 2 SCC 708
In this case, the Supreme Court distinguished between commercial and non-commercial suits. The Court reiterated that while the 120-day rule is strict in commercial cases, civil suits not governed by the Commercial Courts Act still allow some discretion for condoning delays, subject to sufficient cause being demonstrated.
6. Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited (2022)
In this significant judgment, Justice B.V. Nagarathna highlighted the importance of procedural discipline in commercial disputes. She emphasized the mandatory nature of the 120-day limit for filing written statements under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. However, she also acknowledged that justice should not be compromised due to procedural technicalities when genuine and substantial reasons for the delay are provided. This judgment reflects a balanced approach, upholding both procedural compliance and the overarching principles of justice.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's judgments reflect a nuanced approach to condoning delays in filing written statements. While there is flexibility in civil suits to prevent injustice, commercial disputes are governed by stricter timelines to uphold the principles of speedy justice. Legal practitioners must be vigilant in adhering to these timelines and provide substantial reasons when seeking condonation of delay.