Civil Procedure Code RP

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 HIMANSHU GOYAL
SCHOOL OF LAW, NARSEE MONJEE INSTITUTE OF

MANAGEMENT STUDIES, BANGALORE
CASE ANALYSIS
DESH RAJ VS BALKISHAN (D)(2020) 2 SCC 708
NAME : HIMANSHU GOYAL (81022019485)
SUBJECT: CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908
SUBMITTED TO: PROFESSOR. SHANTANU
COURSE: BBA.LLB (H) 3rd YEAR
DATE: 30th SEPTEMBER
NMIMS SOL BANGALORE 1 NMIMS SOL BANGALORE

INDEX
PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

Facts 3
Issues 4
Contentions 4
Judgement 5
Critical analysis 6

FACTS
 Desh Raj(Appellant) and Balkishan (Respondent) own one house of ancestral

property No. 142 in Delhi's Devil Village. Respondent owned the bottom floor,
appellant the first.
 Respondent proposed to acquire the appellant's ancestral home's first floor in February
2017. On 17.03.2017, the parties concluded a sale agreement for Rs. 7.5 lakhs, with
Rs. Respondent gave appellant a legal notice on 13.04.2017, requiring him to perform
his contract portion.
 Respondent sought the civil court demanding particular performance of the agreement
to sell dated 17.03.2017 by directing the appellant to receive the outstanding sale
amount and execute/register the sale deed in favour of the respondent. Respondent
also requested permanent injunction against appellant's property sale.
 The appellant was served 1.05.2017 and appeared on 15.05.2017. Court gives
appellant two weeks to file written statement. The court noted on 18.09.2017 that no
written statement had been filed despite the last opportunity being over two months
ago.
 Appellant demanded multiple pass-overs, but his attorney didn't show.
 The civil court closed the appellant's ability to provide a written statement and struck
off his defence after he missed many deadlines (including one beyond 90 days) and
the matter could not be continually delayed.
 Even at the following hearing on 31.03.2017, the appellant's lawyer did not appear or
deliver a copy of the written statement to the respondent.
 The appellant complained to the high court, which noted he had 120 days from
summons to make a written statement.

ISSUES
“Whether the mandatory time line prescribed for filing a written statement as per amended
CPC under Order VIII, Rule 1, is applicable to non-commercial disputes?”
CONTENTIONS
1. Contentions brought up by the Appellant:
“The appellant said that the 90-day deadline could be extended if the facts and
circumstances of the case were taken into account. He also said that he had been present at
all hearings and that his lawyer's mistake meant that a written statement could not be filed.
The appellant says that if the delay isn't excused, he will suffer a lot of harm because he
won't have a defence in the civil suit. So, he wants the court to use its own discretion
under Rule 1 of Order VIII of the CPC and give him one last chance to file his written
statement.”
2. Contentions brought up by the Respondent:
“The respondent said that the appellant had already been given multiple chances by the
Civil Court, including chances that were longer than the 90-day maximum allowed by law
for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule I of the CPC. People argued that the
appellant's repeated failure to meet the many deadlines set by the Civil Court and to follow
the court's instructions was at best a sign of gross negligence and at worst a deliberate way
to waste time and abuse the legal system.”

JUDGEMENT
“Through Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act of 2015, the CPC has been changed to
apply to business disputes. After the said Act went into effect, there are two types of civil
procedure. According to Section 2(c) of the said Act, commercial disputes are governed by
the amended version of CPC, while non-commercial disputes are governed by the CPC as it
was before the Act.”
“The Court made it clear that non-commercial law suits do not have to file a written
statement within a certain amount of time. It said that the High Court didn't pay attention to
the nature of the dispute and wrongly used the ratio of Oku Tech (upheld in SCG Contracts
India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar (2019) 12 SCC 210), which was made in light of
amended Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC and only applies to commercial disputes. When it
comes to non-commercial lawsuits, the deadline for filing a written statement is only a
suggestion and is not required. The Courts can decide to let a late filing of a written
statement fall. ( Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala & Co).”
“Even though the unamended Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC is a guideline, the Court ruled
that it does not give the litigant or lawyer free reign to file the written statement whenever
they want. The law's goal in setting deadlines under the CPC must be given the attention it
deserves so that disputes can be settled on time. Extreme hardship or a delay caused by
things outside of the parties' control, despite their best efforts, may be a fair and just reason
to let the delay slide.”
“In light of the presented evidence, the court determined that nothing stopped the appellant
from filing the written statement within the deadline. He has therefore failed to provide a
plausible explanation for the delay and is unable to demonstrate that he exercised due
diligence. Despite the strongest argument for dismissing the appeal, the court granted the
appellant one week to file a written statement at a cost of Rs. 25,000/-.”

CRITICAL ANALYSIS
“So, the deadline for filing written statements set by Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is required and not just a suggestion. The rule is meant to help both the person who
is suing and the person who is being sued. The plaintiff is kept from being kept waiting on
purpose or for no reason, and the defendant is given enough time to write and file a written
statement within the time limit.”
“In this case, the provision does allow for some flexibility, but only in rare situations. Order
VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, says that the defendant must provide a
valid reason for letting the plaintiff file a written statement after 90 days have passed. The
court will then check the defendant's reason and, after looking at the facts of the case, make a
decision based on what it thinks is best. The chain of Supreme Court decisions makes it clear
what the rules are, so they can't be misunderstood.”
“In this case the Supreme Court again emphasized the exceptional circumstances of a case as a
valid reason for granting permission for filing a written statement after the expiry of 90
days.”
“I understood that the extension of time shall be only by way of exception and for reasons to
be recorded in writing, howsoever brief they may be, by the court. In no case, the defendant
shall be permitted to seek extension of time when the court is satisfied that it is a case of
laxity or gross negligence on the part of the defendant or his counsel. The court may impose
costs for dual purpose: (i) to deter the defendant from seeking any extension of time just for
asking and (ii) to compensate the plaintiff for the delay and inconvenience caused to him.”
“Like in this case the court granted the appellant one week to file a written statement at a cost
of Rs. 25,000/-.”
“It is clear that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been
found to be advisory. Now, a set of rules must be thought of as such. It's a matter of
procedure, something meant to make justice easier and help it reach its goals. It's not a penal
law or something meant to trip people up.”

Civil Procedure Code RP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Procedure Code RP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Procedure Code RP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 HIMANSHU GOYAL

SCHOOL OF LAW, NARSEE MONJEE INSTITUTE OF

NAME : HIMANSHU GOYAL (81022019485)

SUBJECT: CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908

SUBMITTED TO: PROFESSOR. SHANTANU

COURSE: BBA.LLB (H) 3rd YEAR

DATE: 30th SEPTEMBER

NMIMS SOL BANGALORE 1 NMIMS SOL BANGALORE

PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

NMIMS SOL BANGALORE 2 NMIMS SOL BANGALORE

 Desh Raj(Appellant) and Balkishan (Respondent) own one house of ancestral

NMIMS SOL BANGALORE 3 NMIMS SOL BANGALORE

1. Contentions brought up by the Appellant:

2. Contentions brought up by the Respondent:

NMIMS SOL BANGALORE 4 NMIMS SOL BANGALORE

NMIMS SOL BANGALORE 5 NMIMS SOL BANGALORE

NMIMS SOL BANGALORE 6 NMIMS SOL BANGALORE

You might also like