NARAYAN DATTARAO SONTAKKE v. NAGNATH DATTARAO SONTAKKE
Condonation of Delay in Filing Written Statement in Partition Suits: Prioritizing Substantive Justice and Complete Adjudication Over Technical Defaults Under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:10531
Decision Date: 07-03-2026
List of Laws
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC; Section 148 of the CPC; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; Condonation of Delay; Partition Law
- Facts: The respondent filed a partition suit (Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2016) against the petitioner, his step-brother. Both parties are elderly, aged approximately 77 and 73 years. The petitioner (defendant) appeared on 06.03.2016 but failed to file a written statement within the prescribed period, seeking to file it subsequently with a delay of 58 days. The Trial Court, vide order dated 15.11.2016, rejected the application for condonation of delay, holding that sufficient cause was not established. The petitioner approached the High Court through a Writ Petition in 2024, nearly eight years after the impugned order, citing his background as a poor agriculturist from a remote area and the necessity of his pleadings for a logical conclusion to the partition suit.
- Procedural Posture: The matter reached the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad via a Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Trial Court's order that refused to condone the 58-day delay in filing the written statement.
- Issue: Whether the delay in filing the written statement in a partition suit should be condoned despite the passage of significant time, considering the nature of the litigation and the status of the parties?
- Holding: Yes, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the Trial Court's order, and directed that the written statement be taken on record subject to the payment of costs and adherence to a time-bound trial.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that in partition suits, every party is effectively a plaintiff and must have the opportunity to prove the nature of the property (e.g., whether it is ancestral or self-acquired). Denying the defendant the right to file a written statement would lead to incomplete adjudication and potential complications during the execution of the decree, likely resulting in further prolonged litigation. While acknowledging that the discretion under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be used cautiously and is not a routine matter, the Court adopted a pragmatic approach due to the parties' advanced age, the petitioner's socio-economic background, and the fact that the suit had remained pending for ten years. The Court emphasized that justice is better served by a merits-based decision rather than a "technical knockout", provided the respondent is compensated with costs for the delay and latches.
🔒 For Members Only