The Bharat Kalra v. Raj Kishan Chabra (2022)
Facts
- Case relate to a civil matter pertaining to the filing of a written statement in a civil suit.
- The appellant Bharat Kalra was a party in a civil suit where an injunction was prayed for against the appellant.
- The appellant failed to make his written statement in time causing a delay of 193 days.
- On 12 August 2021, the High Court of Delhi refused condoning the delay in submission of the written statement, appellant moved appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
- The main question of appeal was whether the delay in filing the written statement should be condoned and whether the refusal of the High Court to condone the delay was legally justified.
Issues
1. Whether the High Court was wrong in refusing to condone the delay in the filing of the written statement and whether such delay could be excused under the circumstances.
2. Whether the time limits stipulated for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) are compulsorily applicable, given that the suit was exempted from the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
3. Whether the exercise of judicial discretion by courts in allowing delays was sufficient, and whether the award of costs was a satisfactory remedy in the circumstances.
Judgment
- It further clarified that, since the said suit was not governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the time limit imposed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC to file the written statement is not binding.
- The Supreme Court relied upon the authority of Kailash v. Nankhu (2005), wherein it was held that delays in the filing of written statements may be compensated by costs but not at the cost of denial to file the same.
- The Supreme Court held that the High Court had acted unreasonably and disproportionately in refusing to permit the filing of the written statement, especially in the light of the efforts of the appellant to file it late.
- The Court laid down that procedural discipline should not be at the cost of ensuring fair access to justice for all parties.
- As a result, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and set aside the order made by the High Court and allowed the consideration of the written statement of the appellant in the proceedings of the civil suit.
- Apart from this, the Court directed that the trial court should decide the suit expeditiously, given the age of the plaintiff and the time spent in the case.
