Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:HHC:23563 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. : 304 of 2026 Decided on : 19.06.2026 Bhuvneshwar
…Petitioner Versus Katku …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Narender Guleria, Advocate. For the respondent : None. Virender Singh, Judge
(Oral) By way of the present application, which has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the order dated 05.05.2026, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’), in case No. 204I/2025, titled as ‘Katku Versus Bhuvneshwar’. 2. By way of order dated 05.05.2026, the right of the petitioner to file the written statement in the above suit has been ordered to be closed. 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:23563
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned trial Court. 4. As per the documents annexed with the petition, plaintiff Katku has filed a suit for mandatory injunction against defendant Bhuvneshwar. The defendant was served on 16.01.2026 and on that day, matter was adjourned for 07.04.2026, enabling the defendant to file the written statement. 5. On 07.04.2026, written statement had not been filed and in view of the request made by learned counsel for the defendant, the matter was adjourned for 05.05.2026. 6. On 05.05.2026, the learned trial Court has passed the following order:
“Time again prayed for filing writtenstatement. However, perusal of the case file shows that ample opportunities have been afforded to the defendant to file written statement, but in vain. Moreover, the statutory period, prescribed for filing written statement, has also expired. It appears that the defendant is lingering on the matter intentionally. Hence the opportunity of the defendant to file written statement is struck off by the order of the Court. Let the matter be now listed for PWs on 03.08.2026. Steps be taken within 10 days, if Court assistance is required.”
7.
The said order has been assailed by way of the present petition, mainly on the ground that defendant
3 2026:HHC:23563 Bhuvneshwar was out of station and in order to demonstrate the said fact, boarding pass of defendant Bhuvneshwar Lal has been annexed with the petition. On the said ground, it has been prayed that the written statement could not be filed within the stipulated period. 8. The provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are held to be directory, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kailash Vs Nanhku and others, AIR 2005 SC 2441. Relevant paragraph 45(iv), of the judgment, is reproduced as under:
“The purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. The provision spells out a disability on the defendant. It does not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time. Though, the language of the proviso to Rule 1 of
Order VIII of the CPC is couched in negative form, it does not specify any penal consequences flowing from the non compliance. The provision being in the domain of the Procedural Law, it has to be held directory and not mandatory. The power of the Court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is not completely taken away.”
9. Similar view has again been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Kalra Versus Raj Kishan Chabra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 465. Relevant paragraphs, of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:
“Admittedly, the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff is not the one which is governed by the Commercial Court Act, 2015. Therefore, the time limit for filing of the written
4 2026:HHC:23563 statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory in view of the judgment of this Court reported as ‘Kailash V. Nankhu & Ors.’ reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we find that the delay in filing of the written statement could very well be compensated with costs but denying the benefit of filing of the written statement is unreasonable. Consequently, we allow the present appeal. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. The written statement already filed is taken on record.”
10. In this case, the defendant has taken a specific stand that on 05.05.2025, he was compelled to travel outside the State, due to urgent and unavoidable business affairs and due to the said fact, he could not instruct his counsel, nor he could supply the requisite documents to his counsel for preparing the written statement. As stated above, the learned trial Court has struck off the defence, vide order dated 05.05.2026 and prior to that only two opportunities were given to the defendant to file the written statement. Order is totally silent about the fact that as to how the defendant is lingering on the matter intentionally.
11. Considering the factual position, as involved in the present case, especially the stand, on account of which, the defendant could not file the written statement, the
order under challenge is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, the same is liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.
5 2026:HHC:23563
12. The defendant, through his counsel, is directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 03.07.2026 and thereafter, file the written statement within a period of seven days, subject to cost of Rs. 5000/, to be paid to the plaintiff.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s)
disposed of.
(Virender Singh) 19th June, 2026
Judge (Pramod Kumar)