Summary
The Supreme Court clarified that the mandatory written-statement deadline under the commercial-dispute CPC amendments did not govern this non-commercial property suit. The ordinary Order VIII Rule 1 remained directory, though discretion to excuse delay required diligence and cogent justification, which this defendant had not shown. Nevertheless, as a case-specific indulgence expressly withheld from precedent, the Court permitted the claimed written statement to be taken on record upon supply of a copy and payment of Rs.25,000 costs.
Issues
- Whether the commercial-dispute deadline applied to this suit and whether the delayed written statement should be accepted.
Provisions considered
- Section 16, Commercial Courts Act, 2015The special CPC amendments governed commercial disputes of specified value, not this non-commercial suit over an ancestral-property floor. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 15)
Held
- The High Court mistakenly applied the mandatory commercial-dispute deadline to a non-commercial suit. Ordinary Order VIII Rule 1 remained directory and preserved a defined judicial discretion to condone delay. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Directory procedure did not permit disregard of deadlines. Numerous opportunities were ignored, and the assertion that counsel did not attend supplied no cogent justification or due diligence; ordinary exercise of discretion in the defendant’s favour was not made out. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
- Despite those defaults, the Court granted a lenient exception in the unique circumstances, expressly stating that this exercise of discretion was not to be treated as precedent. Acceptance depended on supplying the copy within one week and paying Rs.25,000 costs. (¶¶ 22, 23)
Result
Orders below set aside; appeal disposed of with direction to take the written statement claimed to have been filed on 2 November 2017 on record, subject to supplying a copy to respondent’s counsel within one week and payment of Rs.25,000 costs.