Headnotes
In a civil suit for permanent injunction pending since 2021, one of several defendants filed his written statement almost five years late, along with an application to condone the delay. The trial court allowed it. The Rajasthan High Court upheld that decision, holding that Order VIII Rule 1 CPC's timeline is directory rather than mandatory in non-commercial suits, and that no single formula governs when a delay should or should not be condoned — each case turns on its own facts, including whether the delay caused genuine prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- Order VIII Rule 1 CPC's timeline for filing a written statement is directory, not mandatory, in non-commercial suits.
- Courts must assess delay-condonation requests flexibly, case by case, rather than by a fixed rule.
- Whether the delay caused real prejudice to the other side is a central factor, not the length of delay alone.
Full Judgment Text
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld a trial court's order condoning a nearly five-year delay in filing a written statement in a civil suit, reaffirming that the procedural timeline under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directory rather than mandatory in non-commercial suits.
FACTS:
A suit for permanent injunction, instituted in June 2021 and involving ten defendants, saw one defendant file his written statement in April 2026 — nearly five years after the suit began — along with an application seeking condonation of the delay. The trial court allowed the condonation application, permitting the belated written statement to be taken on record. The plaintiff challenged this order before the High Court.
PETITIONER'S CASE:
The petitioner argued that a delay of this length was impermissible and that the trial court ought to have rejected the written statement as time-barred.
COURT'S ANALYSIS:
Justice Sudesh Bansal's bench held that the timeline prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory, not mandatory, for suits outside the commercial-courts framework, and that there is no single, fixed formula for deciding whether a delayed written statement should be accepted — the reasons offered can vary from case to case and must be evaluated on their own facts. The Court considered whether the delay had caused genuine prejudice to the plaintiff and whether it undermined the purpose behind the procedural timeline, rather than treating the length of the delay by itself as disqualifying.
HOLDING:
The writ petition challenging the condonation order was dismissed, and the trial court's decision to accept the belated written statement was upheld.
Source: LiveLaw, "No Straitjacket Formula For Condoning Delay In Written Statement In Non-Commercial Suits: Rajasthan High Court," September 12, 2026.
FACTS:
A suit for permanent injunction, instituted in June 2021 and involving ten defendants, saw one defendant file his written statement in April 2026 — nearly five years after the suit began — along with an application seeking condonation of the delay. The trial court allowed the condonation application, permitting the belated written statement to be taken on record. The plaintiff challenged this order before the High Court.
PETITIONER'S CASE:
The petitioner argued that a delay of this length was impermissible and that the trial court ought to have rejected the written statement as time-barred.
COURT'S ANALYSIS:
Justice Sudesh Bansal's bench held that the timeline prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory, not mandatory, for suits outside the commercial-courts framework, and that there is no single, fixed formula for deciding whether a delayed written statement should be accepted — the reasons offered can vary from case to case and must be evaluated on their own facts. The Court considered whether the delay had caused genuine prejudice to the plaintiff and whether it undermined the purpose behind the procedural timeline, rather than treating the length of the delay by itself as disqualifying.
HOLDING:
The writ petition challenging the condonation order was dismissed, and the trial court's decision to accept the belated written statement was upheld.
Source: LiveLaw, "No Straitjacket Formula For Condoning Delay In Written Statement In Non-Commercial Suits: Rajasthan High Court," September 12, 2026.
Cases Cited & References
- 1. 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 379