HC upholds 120-day CPC limit, allows relaxation in exceptional cases

30/09/2026

JAMMU, Sep 29: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the constitutional validity of the 120-day outer limit for filing written statements under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), while holding that courts may permit delayed filing in exceptionally hard cases where compliance was rendered impossible by circumstances beyond the defendant's control.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Dhar delivered the judgment in a batch of writ petitions challenging the legality and constitutional validity of S.O. 1123(E) dated March 18, 2020, through which amendments were introduced to Order V and Order VIII of the CPC, 1908, as applicable to the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.
The judgment, reserved on August 13, was pronounced on September 28. The batch comprised several connected matters from the Jammu and Srinagar Wings of the High Court.
Under the amended provisions, a defendant is required to file a written statement within 30 days of service of summons. The court may extend the period for reasons recorded in writing and subject to costs, but the period ordinarily cannot exceed 120 days.
On expiry of the prescribed period, the defendant ordinarily forfeits the right to file the written statement and the court is barred from taking it on record.
The petitioners had challenged the amendments, contending, among other things, that a rigid time limit could deprive civil courts of discretion in cases where circumstances beyond a litigant's control prevented timely filing. It was also argued that procedural provisions should not operate in a manner that defeats substantive rights.
The Division Bench, however, upheld the amended provisions and held that the 120-day period must ordinarily be strictly followed. Where a defendant fails to comply with the statutory requirement in ordinary circumstances, the right to file the written statement would stand forfeited.
At the same time, the Court recognised a narrow exception for cases involving genuine circumstances beyond the defendant's control.
The Bench held that where a defendant is genuinely incapacitated from filing the written statement within 120 days for reasons beyond his or her control, the court may permit delayed filing, subject to appropriate costs and reasons being recorded.
The Court emphasised that such discretion must be exercised "sparingly" and "cautiously" and only in exceptionally hard cases where filing within the prescribed period was impossible.
The judgment referred to circumstances such as prolonged serious illness, natural calamities, physical or legal disability and unavoidable delay in obtaining indispensable public documents as situations that may, depending on the facts, justify relaxation. The Court clarified that the examples were illustrative and that the burden would remain on the defendant to establish the circumstances through cogent and convincing material.
The Bench further directed that appropriate costs should ordinarily accompany any permission granted for filing a written statement beyond the statutory period, with the object of compensating the plaintiff for the delay.
Having settled the constitutional questions, the Division Bench directed that the individual petitions be segregated and listed before the concerned Single Judge during the fourth week of October 2026 for consideration in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty