Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sri S.M. Deka
Sri S.M. Deka
By
Sri S.M. Deka
Director
North Eastern Judicial Officers’
Training Institute (NEJOTI)
1. The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and the Code
of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to
as the Amendment Act, 1999 and the Amendment Act, 2002
respectively), made extensive amendments to the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the amended Code).
The amendments were considered necessary to tackle the
problem of delay in dispensing Civil Justice. In several areas of
Civil Procedure time frames have been enacted. One such area is
the completion of pleadings by the parties to the suit. To expose
the importance of the time frame regarding completion of
pleadings one may indicate here that before the amended Code
came into force most courts usually gave a lot of latitude to the
defendant regarding filing of the written statement. The phrase
“ends of justice” acted like magic in producing dates after dates
for filing of the written statement. The mere mention of the magic
phrase “ends of justice” in the application for time was sufficient
to make some Judges forget their own words in the order sheet
replete with phrases like “last chance” most last chance”,
“extreme last chance”. In the matter of filing of Written Statement,
thus, the phrase “ends of justice” was stretched to an extent
where it spelled the end of justice in some cases, hence, the
amended provisions extant since 01.07.2002.
2
……………………………… We,
therefore, hold that the Written
Statement is required to be filed
within the time frame provided
under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C and in
case of defendant’s failure to do so,
the court shall have no discussion
(sic) in the matter.”
3. The aforesaid Judgment in Civil Revision (P) No. 126 of 2003 has
been challenged by filing a special leave petition (SLP) in the
Supreme Court. At present it is not known whether the leave to
appeal has been granted or not. What could be the possible
point/points of challenge to the Order in the aforesaid Civil
Revision ? The query led this writer to discover that like in the
provision of Order XVIII Rule 4 and 5, Order XLI Rule 9 and a few
others the drafting over enthusiasm or inadequacy of the
draftsman has left its imprint on this matter of filing of the
written statement as well. This may now be considered in some
6
5. The time frame for filing of the Written Statement also fell for
consideration by the Karnataka High Court in Sri Prasanna
Parvathamba Vs Sri M.S. Radha Krishna Dixit, A.I.R 2003
Karnataka 345 decided on 17.04.2003. In that case O.S. No.
79/2001 was posted for filing of the Written Statement on
22.10.2002. On failure to file the written statement by the
9
section 151 or under section 152 of the code and lastly, (iii) that
the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 do not create a right in the
plaintiff to ask for a judgment.
Postscript
By order dated 01.09.2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the
SLP mentioned in para 3 above in the following words :-
“We find no merit in this SLP. It is accordingly
dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner
to urge the grounds in the appeal against
decree, if filed, which ground is sought to be
urged before this Court in this SLP”.