Supreme Court of India

Kailash v Nanhku

AIR 2005 SC 2441; (2005) 4 SCC 48020051 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
In an election petition before the High Court, the returned candidate (appellant) sought extension of time to file his written statement beyond the period in O.VIII R.1 CPC. The High Court found his reason good and valid but held that it had no power to extend time.
Issue
Whether the time limit in the proviso to O.VIII R.1 CPC is mandatory, and whether it applies with full rigidity to election petitions.
Held
CPC procedure applies to election petitions only as a guideline, with flexibility. The proviso to O.VIII R.1 is procedural; though couched in negative form, it provides no penal consequence and is directory. The time schedule should ordinarily be followed, and extension is an exception, for exceptional circumstances beyond the defendant's control where grave injustice would otherwise result, with reasons recorded and costs where appropriate. The written statement was taken on record on payment of Rs 5,000 costs; the appeal was allowed.
Principle
The 90-day limit in the proviso to O.VIII R.1 CPC is directory; time may be extended in exceptional cases for recorded reasons
Cite this

Facts

  • In an election petition before the High Court, the returned candidate (appellant) sought extension of time to file his written statement beyond the period in O.VIII R.1 CPC. The High Court found his reason good and valid but held that it had no power to extend time.

Issue

  1. Whether the time limit in the proviso to O.VIII R.1 CPC is mandatory, and whether it applies with full rigidity to election petitions.

Held

  • CPC procedure applies to election petitions only as a guideline, with flexibility. The proviso to O.VIII R.1 is procedural; though couched in negative form, it provides no penal consequence and is directory. The time schedule should ordinarily be followed, and extension is an exception, for exceptional circumstances beyond the defendant's control where grave injustice would otherwise result, with reasons recorded and costs where appropriate. The written statement was taken on record on payment of Rs 5,000 costs; the appeal was allowed.

Ratio decidendi

The court's power to extend time for a written statement is not taken away by O.VIII R.1, but must be used sparingly.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

Leading case on the nature of the 90-day limit.

Cite this

Citation

Kailash v Nanhku AIR 2005 SC 2441; (2005) 4 SCC 480

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/877414/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.