D S Allabhaksh vs. M/S Bna Agro Industries
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, D S Allabhaksh, proprietor of DSS Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 7, 2025, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere. This order rejected an application (I.A. No. 2) filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in Commercial Original Suit No. 60/2024. The suit was filed by M/s BNA Agro Industries and its partners for recovery of money. The petitioner, as the defendant, had not filed a written statement within 120 days of the service of summons, prompting the application for permission to file it late.
Held
The Court held that Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC mandates that a defendant shall file a written statement within 30 days from the service of summons. If not filed within this period, the Court may allow filing on another day with reasons and costs, but not later than 120 days from the service of summons. Upon expiry of 120 days, the defendant forfeits the right to file a written statement. In this case, the application for permission to file the written statement was filed after the 120-day period had expired. Therefore, the trial court was justified in rejecting the application. The Court found no error or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. The ratio decidendi is that the statutory bar under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, which limits the filing of a written statement to 120 days from the service of summons, is absolute, and no further extension can be granted thereafter.
Key Issues
1. Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for permission to file a written statement, filed beyond the period stipulated under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC? The petitioner contended that he filed an application seeking permission to file a written statement, implying a request for condonation of delay. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. The Court's decision hinges on the interpretation and application of Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC, which prescribes timelines for filing written statements.
Sections Cited
Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, Section 151 CPC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by defendant challenging the order dated 07.01.2025 whereby I.A.2 filed by him under Section 151 of CPC in Com.O.S.No.60/2024 seeking permission to file written statement, has been rejected.
The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of money in Com.O.S.No.60/2024. Even after lapse of 120 NC: 2025:KHC:4560 days from the date of service of summons, defendant had not filed written statement. Thereafter, he filed an application seeking permission to file written statement.
Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC provides that the defendant shall within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence and where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of 30 days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the court deems fit, but which shall not be later than 120 days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file written statement.
In this case, since the application seeking permission to file written statement is after 120 days from the date of service of summons, the trial Court is justified NC: 2025:KHC:4560 in rejecting the application. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE
VP
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.