In the legal realm, laws can be broadly categorized as either general or special. General laws have widespread applicability, laying down a set of rules applicable in various situations. On the other hand, special laws pertain to specific subjects and contain provisions distinct from general laws. The Supreme Court of India has consistently emphasized that, in the clash between a special law and a general law, the special law shall prevail.
In this context, we focus on two provisions: Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and Rule 4 of Chapter 7 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules 2018 (High Court Rules). It’s important to note that the CPC serves as a general procedural law, while the High Court Rules are special provisions framed by the Delhi High Court to regulate its own procedure concerning ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
Both Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC and Rule 4 of the High Court Rules address the timeframe within which a written statement must be filed in response to a plaintiff’s complaint. However, when it comes to extending the period for filing the written statement beyond 30 days, the interpretation of these provisions differs.
Under the legislative framework, Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC states that the written statement must be filed within 30 days from the date of service of summons. It further allows for an extension of time, as stated in the first proviso of the rule:
“Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.”
Similarly, Rule 4 of Chapter 7 of the High Court Rules mandates that the written statement must be filed within 30 days from the date of service of summons. It also provides for an extension of time for filing the written statement by the defendant. The relevant provision states:
“If the Court is satisfied that the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause for exceptional and unavoidable reasons in filing the written statement within 30 days, it may extend the time for filing the same by a further period not exceeding 90 days, but not thereafter.”
Both provisions allow the court to grant an extension of time for the defendant to file the written statement. The CPC provides for a total of 90 days, while the High Court Rules provide for a total of 120 days. The conflict arises when determining which time limits apply to suits pending before Delhi courts, and whether the court has the authority to grant an extension beyond the prescribed time period of 90 or 120 days.
The discretionary or mandatory nature of these time periods has been a topic of debate. If the time period is considered discretionary, the court can extend the deadline for filing the written statement for any additional period it deems necessary. However, if the time period is deemed mandatory, the court cannot exceed the maximum period specified in the relevant provision.
Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC employs the phrase ‘shall not be later than ninety days,’ while Rule 4 of the High Court Rules uses the phrase ‘but not thereafter.’ The latter explicitly restricts extensions beyond 90 days, which is not mentioned in Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC.
The interpretation of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC has been examined in various court cases. In Kailash vs. Nankhu and Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, the Supreme Court interpreted the phrase ‘shall not be later than ninety days’ and held that it doesn’t curtail the court’s power to extend the period for filing the written statement beyond 90 days. A similar view was adopted in Bharat Kalra vs. Raj Kishan Chabra, where the court allowed the filing of a written statement delayed by 193 days. Therefore, Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC has been deemed discretionary, granting the court the discretion to extend the time period for filing the written statement beyond 90 days if deemed necessary.
In the case of Gautam Gambhir vs. M/s Jai Ambey Traders & Ors., the Delhi High Court analyzed the applicability and interpretation of both Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC and Rule 4 of the High Court Rules. The court held that the High Court Rules, being validly framed, should be considered part of the Delhi High Court Act. It drew inspiration from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chief Forest Conservator (Wildlife) & Ors. v. Nisar Khan, which established that validly framed rules should be treated as part of the Act. The court further stated that the Delhi High Court Act, being a special law, takes precedence over the CPC and even the Commercial Courts Act. Accordingly, the court concluded that the CPC, being a general law, cannot supersede the Delhi High Court Act and the rules framed under it, as they constitute a special law. This conclusion aligned with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Iridium India Telecom Ltd vs. Motorola Inc., stating that High Court rules prevail over the provisions of the CPC, even if they contradict each other.
Having established the applicability of the High Court Rules, the court in Gautam Gambhir (supra) delved into the provisions of Rule 4 of the High Court Rules. The court identified the phrase ‘but not thereafter’ as the crux of the controversy. Holding that Rule 4 of the High Court Rules is mandatory in nature, the court emphasized that the court cannot grant condonation of delay beyond the 120-day period specified in the rule.
In conclusion, the legal position regarding the time limit for filing a written statement in Delhi suits is clear. According to the High Court Rules, the court may extend the time for filing the written statement for a maximum of 120 days. This aligns with the time limit provided by the Commercial Courts Act. Thus, regardless of whether a suit falls under the Commercial Courts Act or pertains to an ordinary suit, the maximum time limit for filing a written statement is 120 days. Under no circumstances can the court grant an extension beyond this 120-day period.
This is the established law for all suits governed by the Delhi High Court Rules. However, for suits not governed by these rules but rather by the CPC, the courts retain the discretion to extend the time for filing the written statement beyond the 90-day period as they see fit.
General Law vs. Special Law: Understanding Time Limits for Filing Written Statements
