The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has refused to interfere with a trial court order allowing a delayed written statement to be taken on record in a non-commercial civil suit. Justice Sudesh Bansal held that the time limit under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is procedural and, in appropriate cases, the delay can be condoned.
The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the trial court's decision to accept the written statement of defendant No. 3, Jamanlal, after a substantial delay.
Background
Dwarka Prasad had filed a suit for permanent injunction on June 11, 2021, against nine private defendants and the Station House Officer of Police Station Shivdaspura. The relief sought against defendants 1 to 9 was common and similar.
While some defendants entered appearance and one defendant filed a written statement in October 2021, Jamanlal did not initially appear. An advocate later appeared for him on January 21, 2026. An application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was subsequently withdrawn for the reason that no order to proceed ex-parte against defendant No. 3 was ever passed. Jamanlal then filed his written statement on April 23, 2026, along with an application seeking condonation of delay.
The trial court permitted the written statement to be taken on record subject to deposit of Rs. 1,000 in Legal Aid. Dwarka Prasad challenged that order before the High Court, arguing that no sufficient explanation had been given for the delay.
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Kailash v. Nanhku, Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala & Co. and Desh Raj v. Balkishan. It noted that in non-commercial disputes, the timeline under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory rather than an absolute bar.
" The purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. "
The Rajasthan High Court further held that there could be no “straitjacket formula” for deciding applications seeking acceptance of a delayed written statement. According to the Court, the explanation for delay must be considered in light of the facts and circumstances of each case.
Justice Bansal noted that no order had been passed against Jamanlal to proceed ex-parte, nor had his right to file a written statement been forfeited. The suit was also pending on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and the delay had not stalled the proceedings.
The Court held that the trial court had committed no manifest error, patent illegality or jurisdictional error in condoning the delay. It also found no substantial prejudice to the plaintiff and dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Dwarka Prasad v. Durgalal & Others
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17249/2026
Judge: Justice Sudesh Bansal
Decision Date: September 2, 2026
