Page 1 CM(M) no.90/2025 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … CM(M) no.90/2025 Pronounced on: 18.07.2025 Abdul Hamid Malik and others …….Petitioner(s) Through: Mr Mir Majid Bashir, Advocate Versus Zahoor Ahmad Malik and others ……Respondent(s) Through: Mr Asif Wani, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGEMENT 1. Petitioners aggrieved of the Order dated 20th December 2024, passed by the court of Munsiff/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Baramulla (for short the “Trial Court”). They, thus, are seeking setting-aside thereof. 2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. I have gone through impugned order as well as Trial Court record. 3. According to counsel for petitioners, Trial Court has failed to appreciate procedural laws meant to further ends of justice. Trial court, while rejecting application for extension of time to file written statement, has escaped to take notice of the ground made therein that defendants could not file written statement in time as they had applied for revenue extracts and it took them some time to get the same. He also avers that Trial Court was not powerless to extend time even when period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to file written statement, had Page 2 CM(M) no.90/2025 expired. It is being also urged by him that Trial Court has wrongly observed that rule of procedure is not mandatory in nature and it is an abstract preposition of law reiterated in Sandeep Thapar v. SME Technologies Private Limited AIR 2014 SC 897, in which it has been held that the Court is not powerless to extend the time for filing written statement even after expiry of statutory period of time as envisaged under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. 4. It was on 28th August 2023 that respondents herein filed a civil suit for Declaration, Partition, Separate possession, mesne profits and Perpetual Injunction against defendants – petitioners herein, before Trial Court. When petitioners did not file written statement within prescribed time, they moved an application for enlargement of time to file it. Objections to application were filed by plaintiffs/respondents. Trial Court after considering contentions of parties dismissed petitioners’ application. 5. Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is reproduced as under: “1. Written statement. — The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence. Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the period of thirty day, 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 and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.” 6. Written statement is to be filed within 30 days from the date of the service of summon on defendant as is provided in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. However, Proviso thereto stipulates that if defendant fails to file written statement within thirty days, he shall be allowed to file it on such other day to be specified by the Court, but for that purpose whys and wherefores are Page 3 CM(M) no.90/2025 to be recorded in writing by the Court and such extension of time shall not be later than 90 days from the date of service of summon. Amendment has also taken place to Proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC in terms of Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act 2016, by which it has been required that in suits involving commercial disputes, extension of time can be granted not later than 120 days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of 120 days, defendant shall forfeit right to file written statement. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that in terms of J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019, amongst others, certain Acts, including Code of Civil Procedure, Samvat 1977, applicable to erstwhile State of J&K, were repealed and consequently, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been made applicable to U.T. of J&K. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 96 of the Act of 2019, the J&K Reorganisation (Adaptation of Central Laws) Order, 2020 has been issued and published vide S.O. 1123 (E) of 2020 dated 18th March 2020, vide which certain amendments / insertions have been made in the Acts mentioned in its Schedule, which includes to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. The Proviso substituted to Order VIII Rule 1 specifies that where defendant fails to file written statement within 30 days, he shall be allowed to file it on such other day, as may be specified by court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as court deems fit, but that 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, defendant shall forfeit right to file written statement and the court shall not allow written statement to be taken on record. Page 4 CM(M) no.90/2025 9. Order VIII Rule I CPC gives procedural provision in regard to the written statement, which is to be filed by defendant within thirty days and if he fails to do so, the time period for submitting the same can be extended upto ninety days from the date of service of summons, for which the reason of extension must be recorded by the court in writing. The object behind time period for filing written statement under order VIII Rule 1 CPC is to make procedure and hearing of the matter in a time efficient manner. 10. Defendants/petitioners are claiming that they could not file written statement in time as they had applied for revenue extracts and it took them some time to get the same. The defence projected by the defendants is vague and false as they cannot be allowed to take such grounds in the application which are not related to the defendants. The defendants have deliberately failed to file the written statement within the prescribed period and in light of unjustified and false narration, defendants cannot be allowed to file written statement beyond the prescribed period as such application seeking extension of time has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court. 11. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Trial Court has rightly and correctly passed order impugned. Extension sought for by petitioners to file written statement has been found not reasoned. Thus, order impugned does not call for any interference. 12. For the reasons discussed above, this petition is dismissed with connected CM(s). (Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Srinagar 18.07.2025 Ajaz Ahmad, Secretary Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No.