The petitioner challenged the Trial Court's order rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing a written statement. The petitioner, a defendant, had applied for an extension to file the written statement and later filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which delayed the written statement submission. The Trial Court rejected the delay application, which the petitioner argued should be condoned under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. The respondent opposed this, asserting the delay was deliberate. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, noting the lack of sufficient reasons to condone the delay and the absence of a provision in CPC to exclude the period during which the Order VII Rule 11 application was pending.

1. Appearances

• Heard Mr. Joshi for the Petitioner and Ms. Viegas for the Respondent.

2. Rule and Final Hearing

• Rule made returnable forthwith.
• Heard finally with consent of parties.

3. Challenge in Petition

• The challenge is to the Trial Court's order dated 11.12.2023, rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement.

4. Petitioner’s Submissions

• Mr. Joshi submitted that the petitioner received summons on 18.08.2022, sought and was granted an extension, and later filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
• After the rejection of this application, the petitioner filed for condonation of delay on 03.03.2023.
• Argued that Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and placed reliance on a Supreme Court decision.

5. Arguments on Delay and Prejudice

• Petitioner argued that denying the opportunity to file the written statement would cause serious prejudice.
• Petitioner expressed readiness to deposit costs for condonation.

6. Respondent’s Submissions

• Ms. Viegas justified the Trial Court's order, asserting that the reasons for delay were unjustifiable and deliberate.

7. Chronology and Delay Calculations

• Summons served on 18.08.2022; the period to file a written statement expired on 17.09.2022.
• Extension granted, but instead of filing the written statement, an application under Order VII Rule 11 was filed.
• Petitioner claimed exclusion of the period during the pendency of the Order VII Rule 11 application.

8. Court’s Observations

• No provision in CPC excludes the period during the pendency of an Order VII Rule 11 application for filing a written statement.
• Written statement required within 30 days, extendable to 90 days for recorded reasons.
• Petitioner’s delay calculation was incorrect, and no sufficient reasons were disclosed for condonation.

9. Supervisory Jurisdiction and Conclusion

• The High Court needed to ascertain if the impugned order was illegal.
• Ignorance of law or wrong advice not sufficient grounds for condonation without an affidavit from the in-house advocate.
• The impugned order was well-reasoned, and the grounds for delay were insufficient.
• Petition dismissed, no costs, rule discharged.