Extension of Time for Filing Written Statement Requires Cautious Discretion to Prevent Misuse and Ensure Substantive Justice: Supreme Court

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has emphasized that any extension of time for filing a written statement in civil suits must be exercised with cautious discretion to prevent potential misuse and ensure substantive justice. The decision was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the case of PIC Departmentals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sreeleathers Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 14902 of 2024).

Background of the Case

The case originates from a legal dispute that began in 1999 when PIC Departmentals Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, filed a suit (C.S. No. 549/1999) in the Calcutta High Court seeking a declaration and a permanent injunction against Sreeleathers Pvt. Ltd., the respondent. The appellant, a tenant on the ground floor of the disputed property located at Lindsay Street, Kolkata, alleged that the respondent, a tenant on the first floor, had erected a signboard that obstructed its hoarding.

The case took an unexpected turn when the official website of the Calcutta High Court showed the status of the suit as “disposed of” on March 1, 2000. However, in 2017, the suit was suddenly listed for hearing, leading to confusion among the parties. Subsequently, Sreeleathers Pvt. Ltd. filed an application (G.A. No. 693/2017) seeking an extension of time to file a written statement, which was initially dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court on June 12, 2023.

READ ALSO  After Long Service Regularization of a Teacher Cannot be Cancelled Merely on the Ground of Lack of Qualification: Allahabad HC

Legal Issues Involved

The primary legal issue revolved around whether the High Court’s Division Bench was justified in allowing an extension of time for filing the written statement after a considerable delay. The appellant contended that the respondent had failed to file the statement within the stipulated period as per the High Court’s rules, which generally allow only a 21-day period for such filings. They argued that the delay was a clear violation of the procedural norms and relied on precedents like Jayshree Tea & Industries v. General Magnets and Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited to assert that such delays should not be condoned unless there were exceptional circumstances.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which had allowed the filing of the written statement by the respondent subject to payment of Rs. 25,000 as costs to the appellant. The bench noted that procedural laws are intended to facilitate justice and should not be applied in a way that denies it at the threshold.

READ ALSO  Only Collegium’s Final Decision Should be Made Public, Not Discussions: Supreme Court

Quoting its previous judgments, the Court stated, “The power to extend time for filing a written statement should not be employed as a matter of course, but with great caution so that the purpose of the procedural statute is not defeated, and unscrupulous litigants do not abuse the process of the Court by adopting dilatory tactics.”

However, the bench emphasized the need for a flexible approach in cases with unique facts, stating, “Procedural technicalities have to give way to substantive justice. Procedure, well and truly, is only the handmaiden of justice. The discretion granted to Courts has to be exercised on a case-specific basis. Undisputedly, ‘procedural laws are primarily intended to achieve the ends of justice and, normally, not to shut the doors of justice for the parties at the very threshold.’”

The Court also considered the confusion created by the High Court’s Registry, which had erroneously shown the suit as disposed of since 2000. The bench noted, “It would be improper to not permit the taking on record of the Written Statement of the respondent apropos the suit,” adding that the sequence of events indicated that the respondent was not solely at fault for the delay.

READ ALSO  Without Changing Date of Birth in Service Records, Employee Cannot Be Made to Retire Early – Allahabad High Court

The case was argued by Dr. S. Muralidhar, Senior Advocate, along with a team of lawyers including Mr. Indranil Ghosh, Mr. Arup Bhattacharyya, Ms. Suparna Mukherjee, and others for the appellant, PIC Departmentals Pvt. Ltd. The respondent, Sreeleathers Pvt. Ltd., was represented by Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Daisy Hannah and her team.

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles