IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.653/2025 Date of Decision: 21st November, 2025. Balbir Singh .....Petitioner Versus Riwal Singh ...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Aruna Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Nemo Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present petition has been preferred seeking the following relief:- “(i) That the impugned order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Theog, District Shimla, HP in Civil Suit No.289 of 2021, titled Riwal Singh Vs. Balbir Singh may kindly be set aside/quashed by allowing the petitioner to file written statement in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order and the zimni orders appended along with. 3. The suit, in the case at hand, was filed by the respondent/plaintiff on 22.09.2021. It is on 14.03.2022 that a counsel had put in appearance on behalf of the present petitioner/defendant before the learned trial Court. On the said date, time for filing Power of Attorney and written statement was sought for and thereafter, the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 matter was posted on 01.04.2022. On 01.04.2022, no written statement was filed, however, it was informed to the Court that the parties are in the process of amicably settling the mater. Hence, the matter was posted on 14.05.2022. 4. On the said date i.e. 14.05.2022, none had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner/defendant before the learned trial Court. Yet again notices were issued to the petitioner/defendant. Subsequent thereto, petitioner was sought to be served for 06.07.2022, 28.09.2022, 19.12.2022 and 17.04.2023. 5. Finally, on 01.06.2023, a counsel had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner/defendant before the learned trial Court. Time for filing Power of Attorney and written statement was once again sought for. The matter was posted on 02.08.2023, on the said date further time was prayed for filing written statement. The matter was listed on 04.09.2023 and again time was sought for filing written statement, however, no written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant, therefore, one last opportunity was granted to file written statement and matter was fixed on 20.09.2023. 6. On 20.09.2023, since no written statement was filed and statutory period for filing the written statement 3 had exhausted, therefore, right to file written statement on behalf of the petitioner/defendant was closed and the matter was listed for plaintiff’s evidence. 7. Order dated 20.09.2023, whereby the defence of the petitioner to file written statement was struck off, is now being challenged by way of the present petition, which was filed on 31.10.2025. From a perusal of the zimni orders, it is evident that initially a counsel had appeared on behalf of the petitioner/defendant on 14.03.2022 and 01.04.2022. No written statement and Power of Attorney were filed on the said date, rather the Court was informed that the matter is being amicably settled. Thereafter, from 14.05.2022 till 17.04.2023 numerous attempts were made to serve the petitioner/defendant. Finally, the petitioner/defendant was served on 01.06.2023. Time for filing written statement was sought. Due and adequate opportunity of doing the same was granted to the petitioner, however, despite availing of the same, when no written statement was filed, then the trial Court was constrained to close the defence of the petitioner to file written statement. 8. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to refer to the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in 2007 (14) SCC 431, titled Aditya Hotels (P) Limited Vs. 4 Bombay Swadeshi Stores Limited. The relevant extract whereof is being reproduced hereinbelow:- “6. The parameters for extending the time granted by Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code have been delineated by this Court in several cases. In Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. (2005 (4) SCC 480) it was noted as follows: "42. Ordinarily, the time schedule prescribed by Order 8 Rule 1 has to be honoured. The defendant should be vigilant. No sooner the writ of summons is served on him he should take steps for drafting his defence and filing the written statement on the appointed date of hearing without waiting for the arrival of the date appointed in the summons for his appearance in the Court. The extension of time sought for by the defendant from the Court whether within 30 days or 90 days, as the case may be, should not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for the asking, more so, when the period of 90 days has expired. The extension can be only by way of an exception and for reasons assigned by the defendant and also recorded in writing by the court to its satisfaction. It must be spelled out that a departure from the time schedule prescribed by Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code was being allowed to be made because the circumstances were exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and such extension was required in the interest of justice, and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. * * * 44. The extension of time shall be only by way of exception and for reasons to be recorded in writing, howsoever brief they may be, by the court. In no case, shall the defendant be permitted to seek extension of time when the court is satisfied that it is a case of laxity or gross negligence on the part of the defendant or his counsel. The court may impose costs for dual 5 purpose: (i) to deter the defendant from seeking any extension of time just for the asking, and (ii) to compensate the plaintiff for the delay and inconvenience caused to him." 7. Since neither the trial Court nor the High Court have indicated any reason to justify the acceptance of the written statement after the expiry of the time fixed, we set aside the orders of the trial Court and that of the High Court. The matter is remitted to the trial Court to consider the matter afresh in the light of what has been stated in Kailash's case (supra). The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.” 9. Timelines specified in the Civil Procedure Code for filing a written statement in a non-commercial dispute as is the case at hand are directory. However, it does not bestow a free hand on any litigant or lawyer to file written statement at their own sweet will. The timeline specified has to be given due weightage. Discretion to be exercised by Courts to extend the timelines are fairly well-defined e.g. extreme hardship or delay occurring due to factors beyond the control of the parties despite proactive diligence may be just an equitable instances for condonation of delay. To the contrary blatant lapses of not filing the written statement within time, seeking extension of time in filing written statement in a casual manner 6 without proffering a reasoned-justification or explanation need to be deprecated. Routine condonations and cavalier attitude towards the process of law affects the administration of justice. Courts are expected to act stringently to ensure that all proceedings are decided within reasonable time. In this regard reference can be made to 2020 (2) SCC 708, titled Desh Raj Vs. Balkrishan (Dead) through proposed legal representative. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow:- 13. As regards the timeline for filing of written statement in a non­ commercial dispute, the observations of this Court in a catena of decisions, most recently in Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala and Co.,4 holds the field. Unamended Order VIII Rule I, CPC continues to be directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of Courts to condone certain delays. 15. However, it would be gainsaid that although the unamended Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is directory, it cannot be interpreted to bestow a free hand to on any litigant or lawyer to file written statement at their own sweet­will and/or to prolong the lis. The legislative objective behind prescription of timelines under the CPC must be given due weightage so that the disputes are 7 resolved in a time­bound manner. Inherent discretion of Courts, like the ability to condone delays under Order VIII Rule 1 is a fairly defined concept and its contours have been shaped through judicial decisions over the ages. Illustratively, extreme hardship or delays occurring due to factors beyond control of parties despite proactive diligence, may be just and equitable instances for condonation of delay. 18. The only defence taken to these repeated and blatant lapses is that the appellant’s counsel was not turning up. No attempt has been made to even proffer a reasoned justification or explanation, and it is clear that appellant is seeking condonation in a casual manner. This ought not to be permitted or encouraged. Courts must act stringently to ensure that all proceedings are decided within reasonable time, and it is but the duty of the judicial system to cultivate a culture of respecting deadlines and time of the Court, its officers as well as of adversaries. 19. The routine condonations and cavalier attitudes towards the process of law affects the administration of justice. It affects docket management of Courts and causes avoidable delays, cost escalations and chaos. The effect of this is borne not only by the litigants, but also 8 commerce in the country and the public­in­general who spend decades mired in technical processes. 10. Since in the case at hand the petitioner/defendant failed to give any cogent reason for not filing the written statement on the designated date, therefore, the learned trial Court has correctly exercised power in closing the right of the petitioner/defendant in filing the written statement. 11. The lack of diligence of the petitioner/defendant in the case at hand is further evident from the fact that the impugned order in the case at hand is of dated 20.09.2023, which has been assailed before this Court by way of the present petition, which was instituted on 31.10.2025. 12. In view of the aforesaid, I see no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court in this respect and there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 13. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 21st November, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)