Condonation of Delay in Filing Written Statement

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Jitendra Jain of the Bombay High Court in the case of Gautam Dham Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Funds and Properties of Parsi Panchayat, Bombay and Others (2025) allowed condonation of 75 days delay in filing written statement in a non-commercial suit, holding that the limitation period under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC starts from the date of actual service of writ of summons along with plaint copy, not from the date of filing vakalatnama. 

What was the Background of Gautam Dham Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Funds and Properties of Parsi Panchayat, Bombay and Others (2025) Case? 

• This was an Interim Application No.4761 of 2025 in Suit No.393 of 2022 filed by the Original Defendant No.1 (Gautam Dham Co-operative Housing Society Limited) seeking condonation of 75 days delay in filing written statement in a non-commercial suit. 
• The Plaintiffs were the Funds and Properties of Parsi Panchayat, Bombay and its Trustees who had filed the suit against the Defendant society and others. 
• The vakalatnama on behalf of Defendant No.1 was filed on 11.06.2021. 
• The writ of summons along with copy of the plaint was served on Defendant No.1 on 08.03.2023. 
• As per Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Defendant was supposed to file written statement within 30 days from service of summons, which expired on 07.04.2023. 
• However, the written statement was actually filed on 21.06.2023, resulting in a delay of 75 days starting from 08.04.2023. 
• The Defendant explained that the delay occurred because the advocate's office inadvertently did not inform the advocate about the writ of summons when it was received. 
• Later, on inquiry by the office bearers of Defendant No.1 society, the advocate inquired with his staff and became aware that the writ of summons had been served on 08.03.2023. 
• Thereafter, immediate steps were taken in drafting the written statement, getting it approved by the office bearers and holding conferences for finalization.

What were the Court's Observations? 

On Starting Point of Limitation Period: 

• The Court held that the object of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is to enable defendant to present defence to the case made in the plaint, which requires actual receipt of plaint copy. 
• The limitation under Order VIII Rule 1 starts from the date of service of writ of summons along with plaint copy, which in this case was 08.03.2023. 

On Sufficient Cause for Delay: 

• The reasons constituted "sufficient cause" since Defendant No.1 is a society run by honorary members. 
• Litigant cannot be made to suffer for advocate's office lapse, especially when delay is only 75 days. 
• Office bearers showed vigilance by contacting the advocate, and immediate steps were taken once lapse was discovered. 
• Defendant No.1 has not gained anything by the delay. 

Final Decision: 

• The Court was satisfied that the applicant explained the delay in filing written statement and the delay required to be condoned. 
• The Interim Application was allowed and Registry was directed to take written statement on record.

What is Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? 

Order VIII: 

• Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) contains provisions in relation to written statement.  

Rule 1 of Order VIII of CPC: 

• Rule 1 of Order VIII deals with written statement. It states that -  
• The Defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence.  
• Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty 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 ninety days from the date of service of summons. 
• Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.

Purpose and Objective: 

• The object is to enable defendant to present defence to plaintiff's case, which requires actual receipt of plaint copy. 
• Therefore, limitation period starts from actual service of summons along with plaint, not from any deemed date.