RANI KUSUM versus KANCHAN DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 752 · Decided: 16-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RANI KUSUM 
v. 
KANCHAN DEVI AND ORS. 
AUGUST 16, 2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder VI!l Rule I (As amended by 
Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002-Written statement filed 
beyond maximum period-Acceptance of-Held: It was in discretion of 
C court-Amended Order VIII, Rule I though worded in negative form, was 
not mandatory keeping in view the context in which it was enacted-Neither 
the power of Court to take on record written statement filed beyond time 
is specifically taken away nor consequences of non-extension of time 
specifically provided for. 
D 
Respondent was served with summons issued by the trial court. 
They filed their written statement beyond 90 days, which was the 
magimum period allowed, apart from the normal period of30 days from 
the date of service of summons. Appellant objected to same. However, 
Trial Court accepted the written statement, and High Court dismissed 
E 
appeal of appellant against same. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that after substitution of Order VIII, Rule 1 
by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment), 2002, the court had no 
discretion to extend the period for filing the written statement beyond 
F the maximum period. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Order VII, Rule 1 after the amendment casts an obli-
gation on the defendant to file the written statement within 30 days from 
G the date of service of summons on him and within the extended time 
falling within 90 days. The provision does not deal with the power of 
the court and also does not specifically take away the power of the Court 
to take the written statement on record though filed beyond the time 
as provided for. Further, the nature of the provision contained in Order 
H VIII Rule 1 is procedural. It is not a part of the substantive law. 
752 
RANI KUS UM v. KANCHAN DEVI 
753 
Substituted Order VIII, Rule I intends to curb the mischief of A 
unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal 
of cases causing inccnvenience to the plaintiffs and petitioners ap-
proaching the court for quick relief and also to the serious inconvenience 
of the court faced with frequent prayers for adjournments. The object 
is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. While justice B 
delayed may amount to justice denied, justice hurried may in some cases 
amount to justice buried. [756-C, D, El 
Sushi/ Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar, [ 1975) I SCC 774; Shreenath and 
Anr. v. Rajesh and Ors., AIR (1998) SC 1827, referred to. 
Blyth v. Blyth, 1966 I All. E.R. 524 (HL), referred to. 
2. It is also to be noted that though the power of the Court under 
c 
the proviso appended to Rule I of Order VIII is circumscribed by the 
words 'shall not be later than ninety days' but the consequences flowing D 
from non-extension of time are not specifically provided though they 
may be read by necessary implication. Merely because a provision of 
law is couched in a negative language implying mandatory character, 
the same is not without exceptions. The courts, when called upon to 
interpret the nature of the provision, rhay, keeping in view the entire 
context in which the provision came to be enacted, hold the same to be 
directory though worded in negative form. [757-E, F] 
Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v, Union of India, JT 
(2005) 6 SC 486, followed. 
Kai/ash v. Nankhu and Ors., [2005[ 4 SCC 480, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5066 of 
2005. 
E 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.10.2004 of the Patna High Court G 
in C.R. No. 1285 of 2004. 
Nishakant Pandey and Alok Kumar for the Appellant. 
Aman Lekhi, Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Nagendra Kumar, Harish Pandey, H 
754 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Syamel Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Jaspreet Singh Rai for the Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. : Leave granted. 
Order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court is the 
subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. By the impugned order the 
learned Single Judge found no substance in the plea of the appellant that 
there was non-compliance with the requirements of Order VIII Rule 1 of 
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') as amended by the Code 
C of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (in short the' Amendment Act'). 
Factual position is almost undisputed and, therefore, need not be 
elaborated. 
D 
Respondent 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.