Order VIII Rule 1 CPC Is Directory; Procedural Delay Cannot Justify Striking Off Defence Where It Causes Serious Prejudice: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Case Name: Sandeep Kumar v. Satpal Singh

Date of Judgment: 26 August 2026

Citation: CR-5997-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the time limit prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for filing a written statement is directory and not mandatory in an ordinary civil suit. Although the defendant had been negligent and had failed to file his written statement despite several opportunities, completely denying him the right to defend the suit would cause serious prejudice. Procedural rules are intended to advance justice and expedite adjudication, not to defeat substantive rights or prevent a party from participating in the judicial process. The Court may, therefore, permit a belated written statement in exceptional circumstances, subject to appropriate and realistic costs.

Summary: The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 10 December 2024 concerning property allegedly agreed to be sold for ₹13.75 lakh, of which ₹7.70 lakh was stated to have been paid as earnest money. The petitioner-defendant was initially proceeded against ex parte but subsequently secured recall of the ex parte order, subject to payment of ₹500 as costs. Thereafter, despite repeated opportunities granted between October 2025 and April 2026, the petitioner neither complied with the costs order nor filed his written statement. Consequently, the trial court struck off his defence on 10 July 2026 after noticing that the prescribed period of 90 days had expired. Before the High Court, the petitioner attributed the default to negligence on the part of his previous counsel and sought one effective opportunity to contest the suit. The High Court found that the explanation did not fully inspire confidence and that the petitioner himself had failed to pursue the proceedings diligently. Nevertheless, relying upon the principle that Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is procedural and directory, the Court observed that refusing to permit a written statement would cause serious prejudice. The purpose of prescribing procedural timelines is to curb dilatory tactics and accelerate trials, but not to scuttle adjudication on merits. While delay in justice is undesirable, an unduly hurried process may equally result in the burial of justice.

Decision: The civil revision was disposed of and the trial court’s order striking off the petitioner’s defence was set aside. The petitioner was granted one effective opportunity to file his written statement, subject to depositing costs of ₹15,000 with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association Lawyers’ Family Welfare Fund within 15 days. The trial court was directed to permit filing of the written statement only upon production of proof of payment. If the petitioner failed to deposit the costs within the stipulated period, the benefit of the High Court’s order would lapse and the order striking off his defence would automatically stand restored. Upon filing the written statement after compliance, the petitioner would also be entitled to lead evidence in support of his defence.