Rajesh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate, For the Petitioner

JUDGMENT/ORDER

Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - A suit for specific performance was instituted by the plaintiff respondent against the petitioner on 24. 12. 2015. On the same date, summons were issued to the petitioner fixing 29. 1. 2016 for filing of written statement and 29. 2. 2016 for settlement of issues. The petitioner entered appearance through counsel on 11. 7. 2016. He filed written statement on 22. 11. 2016 i. e. after a lapse of more than four months from the date he entered appearance in the suit. Although the written statement was filed beyond the time stipulated under Order 8, Rule 1, CPC, but the petitioner did not file any application disclosing reason for not being able to file written statement within time. The plaintiff objected to the filing of the written statement by filing application paper No. 38Ga. After a lapse of about eight months, the petitioner filed an application paper No. 42Ga dated 31. 7. 2017 for condoning the delay. The only reason disclosed in the said application for not being able to file written statement within stipulated time is on account of mistake and oversight. The trial Court by impugned order dated 4. 1. 2018 has rejected the said application holding that the petitioner has failed to disclose any satisfactory reason much less any compelling reason for not being able to file written statement within time. The trial Court has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Versus Union of India, 2005 AIR(SC) 3353, Sakh Saleem Haji Versus Kumar & another, 2006 AIR(SC) 396, Rani Kusum Versus Kanchan Devi & another, 2005 RevDec 616 (SC), Kailash Versus Nanhku & another, 2005 1 ARC 861 (SC).

2. The sole submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that on account of inadvertence, the written statement could not be filed. He submitted that the petitioner has got a very good case on merits and, therefore, the slight delay in filing the written statement be condoned and the written statement be taken on record.

3. The Supreme Court in Kailash Versus Nanhku & another, 2005 1 ARC 861 (SC), has held that provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 CPC stipulating filing of written statement within thirty days, which period could be extended up to ninety days, is not mandatory but only directory and in suitable case the period could be relaxed. However, it has also been held that the delay could not be condoned as a matter of course, but upon disclosure of compelling reasons beyond the control of a party. The relevant observations made in this regard are extracted below :-

"42. Ordinarily, the time schedule prescribed by Order 8, Rule 1 has to be honoured. The defendant should be vigilant. No sooner the writ of summons is served on him he should take steps for drafting his defence and filing the written statement on the appointed date of hearing without waiting for the arrival of the date appointed in the summons for his appearance in the Court. The extension of time sought for by the defendant from the court whether within 30 days or 90 days, as the case may be, should not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for the asking, more so, when the period of 90 days has expired. The extension can be only by way of an exception and for reasons assigned by the defendant and also recorded in writing by the Court to its satisfaction. It must be spelled out that a departure from the time schedule prescribed by Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code was being allowed to be made because the circumstances were exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and such extension was required in the interest of justice, and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended.

"44. 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, shall the defendant 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. "

4. In the instant case, as noted above, the only reason disclosed by the petitioner for not being able to file written statement within stipulated period is mistake on his part. In the considered opinion of the Court, the ground taken cannot be said to be a compelling circumstance beyond the control of the petitioner, so as to condone delay in filing the written statement. This Court does not find any illegality in the view taken by the trial Court to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

5. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.