Delay in Filing Written Statement Condoned: Rajasthan HC

No Straitjacket Formula for Condoning Delay in Filing Written Statement in Non-Commercial Suits: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 12 September 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court upheld a trial court's order taking a defendant's belated written statement on record in a 2021 injunction suit. In non-commercial suits the time schedule in Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory, and there is no straitjacket formula for sufficient reason: each explanation turns on its own facts (paras 13, 15). As the delay had not held up the suit or prejudiced the plaintiff, the writ petition was dismissed (paras 14, 16-18).

Key holdings

The time schedule for filing a written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory, not mandatory, in non-commercial suits (paras 10-11, 13).

No such power to condone the delay lies with the Court in commercial disputes (para 13).

There is no straitjacket formula or fixed category of sufficient reasons; each explanation is weighed on its own facts (para 15).

Where no ex parte or forfeiture order was passed and the delay did not stall the suit, the reasons may be viewed flexibly (paras 14, 16).

Routine condonation and a cavalier attitude to court process are still discouraged (para 12).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

On 11.06.2021 the petitioner sued ten defendants, including the local SHO, for a permanent injunction protecting his abadi land (para 2). On 15.06.2021 the other defendants appeared through counsel; no one appeared for defendant No. 3, but no order to proceed ex parte against him was passed (para 3). Only defendant No. 1 had filed a written statement, and the suit was pending on defendant No. 2's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (para 4). Defendant No. 3 appeared in January 2026, withdrew an Order 9 Rule 7 application, and on 23.04.2026 filed his written statement with an application for condonation of delay, which the trial court allowed on 06.08.2026 (paras 1, 5-6).

Court's Findings

Following Kailash v. Nanhku, the Court held that the time schedule in Order 8 Rule 1 is directory, meant to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing, and that the power to extend time is not taken away (para 10). Atcom Technologies held the same for non-commercial disputes, the provision being procedural (para 11). Desh Raj v. Balkishan, cited by the petitioner, followed those rulings while warning against routine condonation and a cavalier attitude to the process of law (paras 8, 12). Courts may therefore condone the delay in non-commercial suits, though not in commercial disputes, on a reasoned explanation (para 13). Here no order to proceed ex parte or forfeiting defendant No. 3's right to file a written statement had been passed, the suit had not been held up, and the prayer against defendants 1 to 9 was common; defendant No. 3 said he had not known of the suit (para 14). His reasons could be weighed flexibly, the object of the time schedule was not defeated, and the plaintiff suffered no substantial prejudice (paras 16-17).

Legal Principle

In non-commercial suits a court may take a written statement on record after the Order 8 Rule 1 CPC time schedule if a reasoned explanation is given. There is no straitjacket formula: the reasons are judged on the facts of each case, keeping in mind the legislature's object in prescribing the time schedule (paras 13, 15).

Precedents Relied Upon

Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 2441
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 10, 12
The time schedule in Order 8 Rule 1 CPC for filing a written statement is directory, not mandatory; it is meant to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing, and the Court's power to extend time is not completely taken away.
Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala & Co. & Ors. (2018) 6 SCC 639
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 11, 12
In a non-commercial dispute the proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 allows the 30 days to be extended up to 90 days for sufficient reason, and the power to accept a written statement even later is not taken away, the provision being procedural and directory.
Desh Raj v. Balkishan (D) thr. proposed LR Ms. Rohini (2020) 2 SCC 708
Explained Discussed at ¶ 8, 12
Relied on by the petitioner; it follows Kailash and Atcom Technologies but cautions that routine condonation and a cavalier attitude towards the process of law are not to be encouraged.