Tripura High Court
Smt. Sabita Das (Saha) vs Smt. Manti Rani Pal on 21 November, 2025
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP No.47/2025
1. Smt. Sabita Das (Saha), Wife of late Samarendra Saha,
2. Sri Rupak Saha alias Rupendra Saha, S/O. Late Kabindra Saha,
Both are residents of Eastern Bank of Fatik Sagar, P.O.-Amarpur, P.S.-Birganj,
District-Gomati, Pin-799101, Tripura, Age-45 years.
......... Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
Smt. Manti Rani Pal, wife of Sri Nikhil Chandra Pal, resident of Amarpur
Motorstand, P.O.-Amarpur, P.S.-Birganj, District-Gomati, Tripura, Pin-799101.
.........Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dilip Kumar Das Chawdhury, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mampi Chakraborty, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
Order
21/11/2025
This revision is preferred against the order dt.10.06.2025 of the
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, Gomati District, Udaipur refusing to
condone delay beyond 90 days for filing of written statement by the petitioners,
who are defendants in the said suit.
2. Admittedly, summons in the suit were served on the petitioners on
24.01.2024, but they did not file the written statement before 23.04.2024, when
the 90 days period fixed under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC expired.
3. Alleging that the Advocate engaged by the petitioners went to
Guwahati for his eye treatment, this application seeking permission to file
written statement was filed on 14.08.2024.
4. The Court below dismissed the said application on two grounds.
Firstly, it held that previously such an application to extend time for filing
written statement had been rejected on 26.04.2024 and the said order had
attained finality and is subsisting. Secondly, that under Order VIII Rule 1 of
CPC normal time for filing written statement is only 30 days from the date of
service of summons on the defendant, but it can be extended to 90 days for
reasons to be recorded. It also held that the written statement had been filed 203
days after receipt of summons and the delay cannot be condoned.
5. Challenging the same, this revision is filed.
6. The issue relating to the time limit prescribed in Order VIII Rule 1
of CPC of 30 days, extendable up to 90 days came up for consideration before
the Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v.
Union of India1. Supreme Court held in the said judgment as under:
"20. The use of the word "shall" in Order 8 Rule 1 by itself
is not conclusive to determine whether the provision is mandatory
or directory. We have to ascertain the object which is required to
be served by this provision and its design and context in which it is
enacted. The use of the word "shall" is ordinarily indicative of
mandatory nature of the provision but having regard to the context
in which it is used or having regard to the intention of the
legislation, the same can be construed as directory. The rule in
question has to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. The
rules of procedure are made to advance the cause of justice and not
to defeat it. Construction of the rule or procedure which promotes
justice and prevents miscarriage has to be preferred. The rules of
procedure are the handmaid of justice and not its mistress. In the
present context, the strict interpretation would defeat justice.
21. In construing this provision, support can also be had
from Order 8 Rule 10 which provides that where any party from
whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9, fails
to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the court,
the court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such
other order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. On failure to file
written statement under this provision, the court has been given the
discretion either to pronounce judgment against the defendant or
(2005) 6 SCC 344
make such other order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. In the
context of the provision, despite use of the word "shall", the court
has been given the discretion to pronounce or not to pronounce the
judgment against the defendant even if the written statement is not
filed and instead pass such order as it may think fit in relation to
the suit. In construing the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 and Rule 10,
the doctrine of harmonious construction is required to be applied.
The effect would be that under Rule 10 Order 8, the court in its
discretion would have the power to allow the defendant to file
written statement even after expiry of the period of 90 days
provided in Order 8 Rule 1. There is no restriction in Order 8 Rule
10 that after expiry of ninety days, further time cannot be granted.
The court has wide power to "make such order in relation to the
suit as it thinks fit". Clearly, therefore, the provision of Order 8
Rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90 days to file written
statement is directory. Having said so, we wish to make it clear that
the order extending time to file written statement cannot be made in
routine. The time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases.
While extending time, it has to be borne in mind that the legislature
has fixed the upper time-limit of 90 days. The discretion of the court
to extend the time shall not be so frequently and routinely exercised
so as to nullify the period fixed by Order 8 Rule 1."
7. The Supreme Court thus held that time can be extended only in
exceptionally hard cases and while extending time, it has to be borne in mind
that the legislature has fixed the upper time limit of 90 days. It also held that
order extending time to file written statement cannot be made routinely and
such time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases.
8. Having regard to the said judgment of the Supreme Court and
having regard to the fact that the previous application filed by the petitioner for
the same relief had already been dismissed on 26.04.2024 and the reason
assigned by petitioners now cannot be countenanced, I do not find any error in
the order of the Court below dismissing the application for granting leave to
receive the written statement belatedly.
9. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
Pulak
PULAK BANIK Digitally signed by PULAK BANIK
Date: 2025.11.24 18:13:56 +05'30'
