SHAIKH SALIM HAJI ABDUL KHAYUMSAB versus KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 349 · Decided: 18-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SHAIKH SALIM HAJI ABDUL KHA YUMSAB 
A 
v. 
KUMAR AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 18, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYA T AND R. V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder VIII Rule 1 (as amended by Civil 
Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, I999)-Written statement-Filing of-
Extended time granted by Court beyond prescribed period-The extended C 
date being holiday, written statement filed on the next day-Refusal by Court 
to accept, the same being beyond 90 days-Writ Petition--High Court held 
the Written Statement as unacceptable-On appeal, held: The Court could not 
have refused to accept the written statement as it was within the time granted 
by it-Party cannot suffer for the mistake of the Court-The provision being 
procedural, the same should not be construed as mandatory-It is always D 
subservient to and in aid to justice. 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
Procedural Law-Interpretation of-Held: Unless compelled by express 
and specific language of the statute, procedural enactment ought not be E 
construed in a manner which would leave the Court helpless to meet 
extraordinary situations in tlze ends of justice-It should not ordinarily be 
construed as mandatory-Merely because a provision is couched in a negative 
language implying mandatory character, the same is not without exceptions-
Jt is subservient to and is in aid of justice-Any interpretation which eludes ' p 
or frustrates· the recipient of justice is not to be followed 
Maxims: 
"actus curiae neminem gravabit" and "lex non cogit ad. 
impossibilia"-Applicability of 
G 
In a civil suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff, appellants-' 
defendants were directed to file Written Statement. On their having not 
filed the same within time, they sought extension of time to file the same., 
Time was allowed till 19.2.2004 which fell beyond 90 days. That date being 
349 
H 
350 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005].SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A a holiday, appellants filed the Written Statement the next day. Trial Court 
refused to accept the same on the ground that the Written Statement was 
filed beyond the period of 90 days. Appellants filed Writ Petition, which 
was dismissed on the ground that there was no scope for granting extension 
of time beyond the period of 90 days to file the Written Statement, in view 
B of the amendment to CPC by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 
1999. 
In appeal to this Court appellants contended that Court itself had 
granted time to file Written Statement by 19.2.2004, and that date being 
holiday, Written Statement having been filed the next day, the view taken 
C by the courts below was untenable. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Order VIII Rule l CPC does not deal with the power of 
the court and also does not specifically take away the power of the court 
D to take the Written Statement on record though filed beyond the time as 
provided for. Further, the nature of the provision contained in Order VIII, 
Rule l is procedural. It is not a part of the substantive law. Substituted 
Order VIII, Rule 1 by 1999 amendment intends to curb the mischief of 
unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal 
E of cases causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs and petitioners approaching 
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 delayed may amount 
to justice denied, justice hurried may in some cases amount to justice 
buried. (355-C, D, E) 
F 
1.2. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may 
be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing 
procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no 
party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the 
process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific 
G language of the Statute, the provisions of the CPC or any other procedural 
enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the 
court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. 
(355-F, G) 
H the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary 
1.3. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not 
SHAIKH SALIM HAJI ABDUL KHA YUMSAB v. KUMAR 
351 
power in Judges to act ex debito justiciae where the tragic sequel otherwise A 
would be wholly inequitable. -Justice is the goal of jurispr

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