Bombay High Court
JANARDHAN LAHU DAYRE AND ORS.versusSUDAM MAHADU ALIAS MAHADEV PATIL AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC is directory and that delay in filing a written statement may be condoned, setting aside the order rejecting the condonation.
Summary
The petitioners sought condonation of a 180‑day delay in filing their written statement in a civil suit, arguing that the delay was due to receiving the plaintiff's documents only on 17 January 2017. The Civil Judge Junior Division had rejected their application for condonation. The High Court examined whether Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC is mandatory or directory and considered the precedent set in Kailash v. Nankhu, which held the provision to be directory. Finding that the suit was not a commercial dispute and that the petitioners deserved an opportunity to defend on merits, the Court set aside the lower court’s order. The petitioners were directed to file their written statement within four weeks, and the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether delay of 180 days in filing a written statement can be condoned under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC.
- Whether Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory or mandatory in nature.
- Whether the lower court erred in rejecting the condonation application.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 8 Rule 1
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- written statement
- Civil Procedure Code
- Order 8 Rule 1
- writ petition
- appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
Neeta Sawant 17-WP-967-2020.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 967 OF 2020
Janardhan Lahu Dayre & Ors. …..Petitioners
(Orig.Defendants)
: Versus :
Sudam Mahadu alias Mahadev
Patil & Ors. ….Respondents
(Orig.Plaintiffs)
Mr. Prashant Rajput, for the Petitioner.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 3 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C :
1) The petition challenges order dated 2 January 2018 passed by
the Civil Judge Junior Division, Ulhasnagar rejecting the application
preferred by the Petitioners for condonation of delay of 180 days in filing
the petition.
2) I have heard Mr. Rajput, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners. Respondents are served with notices issued by this Court.
However, none has appeared in favour of the Respondents. There is
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 1 of 2
Thursday, 3 September 2026
Neeta Sawant 17-WP-967-2020.docx
delay of 180 days in seeking to file Written Statement on behalf of the
Petitioners. In the application, some justification is pleaded by the
Petitioners. It is contended that the Plaintiffs supplied list of documents
to the Defendants on 17 January 2017 and this is how Written Statement
was drafted and sought to be tendered alongwith delay condonation
application.
3) The consequence of non-filing of Written statement in a suit are
drastic. The Apex Court has held in Kailash Versus. Nankhu & Ors.1 that
provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code are directory in
nature and not mandatory. This is not a commercial suit. In my view
therefore, an opportunity needs to be granted to the Petitioners to defend
the Suit on merits.
4) The order dated 2 January 2018 is accordingly set aside. The
Petitioners shall file Written Statement in the Trial Court within a period
of 4 weeks. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.09.07
16:32:18
+0530
1 (2005) 4 SCC 480
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 2 of 2
Thursday, 3 September 2026
Checking your session…