Man Se Laksh Tak : Day 6
19.07.2023 (16:50 to 17:10)
When there are description with regard to any particular topic having common aim but following to different outcome, often leads to IRONY! Same is the situation, as can be found, in the Code of Civil Procedure Order 8.
The said order is pertaining to written statement, set-off and counter claim, as is titled. There are 36 rules under Order 8.
There are circumstances, where & when one feels that their right is violated in terms of the Constitution of India & CPC, approaches the Court of Law by making an application. The said application of the applicant, even has the details pertaining to, the one who he believes have violated his right or curtailed the one, the said party / person can be termed as defendant.
In such scenario, of application being made, it is expected that the defendant should reply & put upon his version. However, it is seldom observed that the defendants remain reluctant to put up their written statement and neglect the Court proceedings.
–PAGE 1–
In that situation, it becomes necessary to excess the Rule 1 of Order 8, CPC which states that, “ Written Statement : The defendant shall, within 30 days from the date of the service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: PROVIDED that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within said period of 30 days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than 90 days from the date of the service of summons.” which specifically means that, defendant to produce their version of statement within 30 days, and upon availing Court’s permission in writing within 90 days, in brief.
Also Rule 9 of Order 8 CPC states, “ Subsequent Pleadings : No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit; but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same. ”
But, unless and until, the applicant gets harassed to the optimum, due to said lingering, the defendant’s are reluctant to comply by and submit their version.
When the applicant says, “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH” and pleads time limitation, the defendant pops up with Order 8 Rule 10 CPC, which states, “ Where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up.”
Therefore, here arises dilemma when the same code speaks for two different procedures on same aspects, seemingly.
These being the situation, to make the litigants follow the time limitation aspects, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to address this very issue elaborately in the leading Case Law ‘Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union Of India’ (2005)6 SCC 344 and harmoniously construed Rule 1, 9 and 10 of Order 8.
Link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/342197/ Paragraph 13, Line 28
The essence which can be extracted from this is, extension of time should not be frequently or routinely done by the Court, under discretion..!
–PAGE 2–
