The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a landmark ruling, has underscored that trial courts cannot extend the time for filing written statements without a formal written request from the defendant. This decision was delivered by Justice G.R. Swaminathan while adjudicating the case Ramesh Flowers Private Limited v. Mr. Sumit Srimal (C.R.P.(MD) Nos. 1853 & 1854 of 2024), wherein the court scrutinized the practices of trial courts regarding procedural timelines under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Background of the Case
The case originated from a suit filed by Ramesh Flowers Private Limited (the plaintiff), represented by its authorized signatory Mr. Swaminathan, against its former employee, Mr. Sumit Srimal (the defendant). The plaintiff alleged that after his termination from employment in April 2022, Mr. Srimal engaged in activities detrimental to the company’s interests. Subsequently, the plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from continuing such acts, filing O.S. No. 140 of 2022 in the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi.
The trial court, after issuing notice to the defendant, did not grant an ex parte interim injunction, prompting the plaintiff to approach the Madras High Court. The High Court initially granted an interim injunction on 22 September 2022, which was later extended.
After the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining an injunction, the focus shifted to the defendant’s failure to file a written statement within the prescribed 30-day period, which is stipulated under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC.
Legal Issues Involved
The central legal issue revolved around the timelines for filing written statements as mandated by Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC. According to the rule, the defendant must file the written statement within 30 days of receiving the summons, with a maximum extension of 90 days for filing, allowed only under exceptional circumstances and based on the court’s discretion.
The plaintiff objected to the acceptance of the defendant’s written statement, which had been filed beyond the statutory limit of 90 days. The trial court had taken the written statement on record without a formal application for condonation of delay from the defendant, which led the plaintiff to file a revision petition before the High Court.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
Justice G.R. Swaminathan, while delivering the judgment, extensively discussed the procedural requirements under the CPC and relevant rulings of the Supreme Court, including Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344, which had clarified that while the 90-day limit is directory, it cannot be relaxed without sufficient reasons.
The court emphasized that any extension of time for filing a written statement beyond 30 days must be preceded by a written application from the defendant, explaining the delay and seeking condonation. Justice Swaminathan observed:
“The trial courts shall not on their own extend the time for filing the written statement after the expiry of thirty days. It can be done only at the request of the defendant. The request cannot be made orally. It should be in writing. It should contain good reasons.”
The court further pointed out that in this case, no such written application was filed by the defendant, and the trial court’s acceptance of the late filing was without proper justification. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the High Court reiterated that while procedural rules are meant to aid justice, they cannot be ignored or bypassed without due cause.
Key Legal Precedents
Justice Swaminathan referred to a series of landmark judgments that shaped the procedural discipline under the CPC, including:
1. Kailash v. Nanhku (2005) 4 SCC 480 – The court had ruled that extensions for filing written statements should not be routine and must be based on exceptional circumstances.
2. Desh Raj v. Balkishan (2020 1 CTC 586) – Reinforced the necessity of filing written applications and providing sufficient reasons for delay.
3. R.N. Jadi and Brother v. Subhashchandra (2007 4 CTC 326) – Emphasized that procedural rules should serve the cause of justice and not lead to injustice, though they should not be used to undermine statutory timelines.
Decision of the Court
In light of the above, the Madras High Court set aside the trial court’s acceptance of the written statement. It allowed the defendant liberty to file a fresh written statement accompanied by a proper application seeking condonation of delay. The court directed that the delay should only be condoned if justified and upon payment of appropriate costs.
“Any written statement filed after thirty days can be accepted only upon condonation of delay in filing the same. The defendant must submit an application and offer proper explanation for the delay,” the court stated.
Case Details:
– Ramesh Flowers Private Limited v. Mr. Sumit Srimal
– Case Numbers: CRP(MD) Nos. 1853 & 1854 of 2024
– Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan
– Lawyers: Mr. J. Sivanandaraaj (Senior Counsel for the petitioner), Mr. P. Sunil (for the respondent)
