Court says deadline is ordinarily mandatory; relaxation possible only when circumstances beyond defendant’s control make timely filing impossible
JAMMU, OCTOBER 2 :
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) prescribing a 120-day outer limit for filing written statements, while holding that courts may permit delayed filing in genuinely exceptional circumstances where compliance was rendered impossible due to reasons beyond the defendant’s control.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Dhar passed the judgment on September 28, 2026, while dealing with a batch of petitions challenging S.O. 1123(E) dated March 18, 2020, through which the Central Government adapted the CPC for the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.
Challenge to 120-Day CPC Regime
The petitions primarily challenged the provisos inserted into Order V Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.
Under the amended provisions, a defendant is required to file a written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons. The court may extend the period, but the maximum permissible period is 120 days.
Once the 120-day period expires, the defendant’s right to file the written statement ordinarily stands forfeited.
The petitioners had questioned the authority of the Central Government to make substantive changes to the CPC under Section 96 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. They also argued that the stringent 120-day mechanism was primarily associated with commercial disputes and could not automatically be applied to ordinary civil suits.
High Court Rejects Challenge to Legislative Competence
The Division Bench rejected the challenge to the legislative competence of the Central Government.
The Court held that Section 96 of the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 empowered the Central Government to make necessary adaptations and modifications to laws applicable to the successor Union Territories.
The Bench also took note of the fact that similar provisions had already been incorporated into the erstwhile Jammu & Kashmir Code of Civil Procedure through the Jammu and Kashmir Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2018.
According to the Court, the 2020 adaptation was also aimed at maintaining continuity with the procedural framework that had existed in the erstwhile State.
120-Day Deadline Remains Mandatory
While upholding the amended provisions, the Bench made an important clarification regarding the consequences of the 120-day deadline.
The Court held that the statutory period must ordinarily be strictly adhered to and that, after expiry of 120 days, the defendant’s right to file the written statement would normally stand forfeited.
However, the Bench held that the provisions must be read in a manner that preserves limited judicial discretion in genuinely exceptional circumstances.
Where circumstances beyond the defendant’s control make it impossible to file the written statement within the prescribed period, the court may, in an appropriate case, permit filing even after the expiry of 120 days.
Serious Illness, Natural Calamity Among Possible Exceptional Circumstances
The Court referred to circumstances that may, depending on the facts and evidence, justify such limited relaxation.These include.Prolonged serious illness;.Natural calamities;.Physical or legal disability;.Delay in obtaining indispensable public documents; and.Bona fide efforts towards settlement through mechanisms contemplated under Section 89 and Order XXVII Rule 5B CPC.
The Bench clarified that these circumstances are illustrative and not exhaustive.
However, merely demonstrating hardship would not be sufficient.
Heavy Burden on Defendant to Prove Impossibility
The Court placed a heavy burden on the defendant seeking permission to file the written statement after 120 days.
It held that the defendant must establish, through cogent and convincing material, that filing within the statutory period was genuinely impossible.
The Bench cautioned that the exceptional power cannot be invoked merely because the defendant faced an inconvenient, difficult or otherwise “hard” situation.
Delayed Filing May Attract Costs
The High Court further directed that whenever a court permits filing of a written statement beyond the 120-day period, the plaintiff should ordinarily be compensated by imposing appropriate costs.
The court permitting such delayed filing must also record reasons explaining why the exceptional power has been exercised.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents
The Division Bench considered several judgments of the Supreme Court while examining the issue, including:
- Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India;
- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.; and
- SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
The Court also reiterated the principle that procedural law is intended to facilitate the administration of justice and should not ordinarily operate to defeat substantive rights where compliance with a statutory requirement has genuinely become impossible.
At the same time, the Bench stressed that the power to relax the deadline must be exercised sparingly and cautiously.
Three-Fold Conclusion of the Division Bench
The Court ultimately recorded three principal conclusions:
First, the amended provisions of Order V and Order VIII CPC are constitutionally valid.
Second, the 120-day statutory period must ordinarily be strictly followed, and the defendant’s right to file the written statement normally stands forfeited upon expiry of that period.
Third, in exceptionally hard circumstances, where the defendant was genuinely prevented by reasons beyond his or her control from filing the written statement within 120 days, the court may permit delayed filing, subject to costs and recorded reasons.
Individual Petitions to Be Placed Before Single Judge
Having decided the constitutional validity of the amended provisions, the Division Bench disposed of the batch at that stage.
The Court directed that the individual petitions be segregated and placed before the concerned Single Judge during the fourth week of October 2026 for consideration in accordance with the conclusions recorded by the Division Bench.
The judgment thus preserves the 120-day deadline as the normal rule, while recognising a narrowly confined judicial power to address cases where extraordinary circumstances genuinely prevented timely compliance. (KNC)