Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Rejection of Delayed Replica Filing in Civil Suit, Citing Lack of Justification for Delay and Procedural Lapses

Court’s Decision:
The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the petition challenging the orders passed by the trial court and the revisional court. The petitioners’ application for filing a replica under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC, which was filed after a significant delay of seven years, was rejected. The High Court found no infirmity in the reasoning provided by the lower courts and upheld their decisions.

Facts:
The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in a civil suit filed in 2014, moved an application (No. 136 C2) under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). This application was submitted seven years after the filing of the written statement by the respondent (defendant). The trial court rejected the application on the grounds of the considerable delay and the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the late submission. Additionally, the trial court noted that one of the witnesses, P.W.1 Imran, had already been cross-examined in 2023.

The petitioners subsequently filed a civil revision application challenging this decision in the Additional District Court, Laksar, District Haridwar, which was also dismissed. The revisional court found no merit in the petitioners’ arguments and affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Issues:
The primary issue was whether the petitioners could justify the significant delay of seven years in submitting the replica application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC.

Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioners sought to submit the replica despite the long delay, arguing for the acceptance of their application under Order 8 Rule 9. They aimed to introduce additional pleadings beyond their initial plaint after the defendant’s written statement had been filed.

Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondent opposed the petitioners’ application, arguing that the considerable delay of seven years was unjustifiable and that the application did not meet the conditions set out in Order 8 Rule 9. Additionally, the examination of a key witness had already taken place, further complicating the request.

Analysis of the Law:
Under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC, a party may be allowed to file subsequent pleadings after the written statement, but only with the permission of the court and for good cause. The courts typically require a justifiable reason for allowing such additional pleadings, especially when there is a significant delay in filing.

Precedent Analysis:
The revisional court quoted the terms and conditions of Order 8 Rule 9 in its reasoning for rejecting the revision application. Although the judgment did not explicitly mention precedents, the court’s reliance on the statutory provisions suggests that the principles of timely submission of pleadings and justifiable delay were key to its decision.

Court’s Reasoning:
The court concluded that there was no satisfactory reason provided by the petitioners for the delayed filing of the replica. It agreed with both the trial and revisional courts, which had found that the conditions for allowing the additional pleadings under Order 8 Rule 9 were not met. The trial court had also observed that the prosecution’s key witness had already been cross-examined, further weakening the petitioners’ case for introducing new pleadings.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the orders of both the trial court and the revisional court, dismissing the petition on the grounds that there was no infirmity in the reasoning of the lower courts. The court emphasized the lack of any compelling explanation for the delay in filing the replica and reiterated the importance of adhering to procedural timelines in civil litigation.

Implications:
This judgment reinforces the strict adherence to procedural rules, particularly concerning the timely submission of pleadings. It serves as a reminder that litigants must provide compelling reasons for any significant delays in civil proceedings, especially when seeking permission to file additional pleadings under Order 8 Rule 9 of the CPC. The decision also highlights the courts’ reluctance to entertain such applications when there is a substantial delay without adequate justification.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Sub-Registrars in Alleged Forest Land Sale Case, Holds 2007 Forest Officer’s Directive Cannot Override Statutory Provisions: No Criminal Liability for Performing Official Duty