Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) -the ratio concerning the mandatory nature of the timeline prescribed for filing of written statement and the lack of discretion with Courts to condone any delay is applicable only to commercial disputes, but not to non commerical disputes - unamended discretion holds in the courts. At the outset, it must be noted that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 through Section 16 has amended the CPC in its application to commercial disputes to provide as follows: “16. Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in its application to commercial disputes.—(1) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, in their application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value, stand amended in the manner as specified in the Schedule. (2) The Commercial Division and Commercial Court shall follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a specified value. (3) Where any provision of any Rule of the jurisdictional High Court or any amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the State Government is in conflict with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Act shall prevail.” Hence, it is clear that post coming into force of the aforesaid Act, there are two regimes of civil procedure. Whereas commercial disputes [as defined under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015] are governed by the CPC as amended by Section 16 of the said Act; all other non­commercial disputes fall within the ambit of the unamended (or original) provisions of CPC. The judgment of Oku Tech (supra) relied upon the learned Single Judge is no doubt good law, as recently upheld by this Court in SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. KS Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,3 but its ratio concerning the mandatory nature of the timeline prescribed for filing of written statement and the lack of discretion with Courts to condone any delay is applicable only to commercial disputes, as the judgment was undoubtedly rendered in the context of a commercial dispute qua the amended Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. As regard the timeline for filing of written statement in a noncommercial dispute, the observations of this Court in a catena of decisions, most recently in Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala and Co.,4 holds the field. Unamended Order VIII Rule I, CPC continues to be directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of Courts to condone certain delays.

Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”)  -the ratio concerning the mandatory nature of the timeline prescribed for filing   of   written   statement   and   the   lack  of  discretion   with   Courts   to condone   any   delay   is   applicable  only   to   commercial   disputes,   but not to non commerical disputes - unamended discretion holds in the courts.

 At the outset, it must be noted that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
through Section 16 has amended the CPC in its application to commercial
disputes to provide as follows:
“16.  Amendments  to  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  1908  in  its
application   to   commercial   disputes.—(1)   The   provisions   of  the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, in their application to
any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value,
stand amended in the manner as specified in the Schedule.
(2) The Commercial Division and Commercial Court shall follow the
provisions   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure,   1908   (5   of   1908),   as
amended by this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial
dispute of a specified value.
(3) Where any provision of any Rule of the jurisdictional High Court or
any amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the State
Government is in conflict with the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, the provisions
of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Act shall prevail.”
 Hence, it is clear that post coming into force of the aforesaid Act, there are two regimes of civil procedure. Whereas commercial disputes [as defined   under   Section   2(c)   of   the   Commercial   Courts   Act,   2015]   are governed by the CPC as amended by Section 16 of the said Act; all other
non­commercial   disputes   fall   within   the   ambit   of   the   unamended   (or original) provisions of CPC. 

The judgment of  Oku  Tech  (supra)  relied upon the learned Single Judge is no doubt good law, as recently upheld by this Court in  SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. KS Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,3 but its ratio concerning the mandatory nature of the timeline prescribed for filing   of   written   statement   and   the   lack   of   discretion   with   Courts   to condone   any   delay   is   applicable  only   to   commercial   disputes,   as   the judgment   was   undoubtedly   rendered   in   the   context  of   a   commercial dispute qua the amended Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.
As   regard   the   timeline   for   filing   of   written   statement   in   a   noncommercial dispute, the observations of this Court in a catena of decisions, most recently in Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala and Co.,4 holds   the   field.  
Unamended   Order   VIII   Rule   I,   CPC   continues   to   be directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of Courts to condone certain delays. 

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.433  OF 2020
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6217 of 2019]
Desh Raj ..... Appellants(s)
                             VERSUS
Balkishan (D) Through Proposed LR Ms. Rohini  .....Respondents(s)
JUDGMENT
Leave granted.
2. This Civil Appeal is directed against order dated 26.11.2018 passed
by the Delhi High Court whereby appellant’s revision petition against the
order of the Civil Court which closed his right to file written statement
under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter
“CPC”)   and   struck­off   his   defence   owing   to   repeated   delays   and   nonadherence of prescribed deadlines, has been dismissed.
Page | 1
FACTS
3. The appellant and the respondent are brothers and own one floor
each of ancestral property bearing No. 142 in Devli Village, Delhi. The
ground floor was possessed and owned by the respondent, whereas the
first floor was in the name of the appellant.
4. It   has   been   claimed   that   in   February   2017,   the   respondent
approached   the   appellant   offering   to   purchase   the   first   floor   of   the
ancestral property. Subsequently, an agreement to sell was entered into
between the parties on 17.03.2017 for total consideration of Rs 7.5 lakhs,
of which an amount of Rs 1 lakh was paid as earnest money to  the
appellant. This agreement was subsequently not honoured and a legal
notice was served upon the appellant by the respondent on 13.04.2017,
calling upon  him to   accept  consideration   and  perform  his  part  of  the
contract.
5. Claiming that the appellant was attempting to sell the suit property
to third parties, the respondent later approached the Civil Court praying
for   a   decree   of   specific   performance   of   the   agreement   to   sell   dated
17.03.2017   by   directing   the   appellant   to   receive   the   balance   sale
consideration   and   execute/register   the   sale   deed   in   favour   of   the
respondent. Additionally, the respondent sought to permanently injunct
the appellant from alienating the property in favour of any third party.
Page | 2
Alternatively, recovery of damages of Rs 2 lakhs with pendent lite and
future interest @ 18% per annum was sought by the respondent.
6. The appellant was served on 01.05.2017, and he appeared through
counsel on 15.05.2017 wherein the Civil Court granted the appellant 30
days to file his written statement. On 17.07.2017, noting that no written
statement had been filed till then, the Court granted the appellant a final
opportunity of two weeks to file his written statement. On 18.09.2017, the
Court observed that despite the last opportunity having been accorded
more   than   two   months   ago,   no   written   statement   had   been   filed.
Nevertheless,   the   Court   granted   another   final   opportunity,   subject   to
payment of Rs 3,000 costs and the matter was posted for 11.10.2017. On
this date, appellant sought multiple pass overs but his Counsel did not
appear before the Court. After noticing that despite several opportunities
(including one beyond the maximum period of 90 days) the appellant had
failed to file any written statement or deposit costs and that the matter
could   not   be   adjourned   repeatedly,   the   Civil   Court   thus   closed   the
appellant’s   opportunity   of   filing   written   statement   and   struck   off   his
defence. Even on the next hearing on 03.11.2017, the appellant’s Counsel
did not appear or supply a copy of the written statement to the respondent,
as noted in the Trial Court’s daily order.
Page | 3
7. The aggrieved appellant approached the High Court in revision, which
noted how he had been granted repeated opportunities and yet the written
statement was not filed within 120 days of notice. Relying upon the order
of its co­ordinate bench in Oku Tech Pvt Ltd v. Sangeet Agarwal and
Others1 wherein it was held that there was no discretion with courts to
extend the time for filing the written statement beyond 120 days after
service   of   summons,   the   Delhi   High   Court   summarily   dismissed   the
petition.
CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES
8. The appellant’s primary contention is that the reliance on Oku Tech
(supra) was erroneous as it was rendered in light of Order VIII Rule 1 of
CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which in turn was
applicable   to   commercial   disputes   only.   The   present   matter   was
highlighted   as   being   non­commercial,   and   it   was   urged   that   the   unamended   Order   VIII   Rule   1   of   CPC   would   be   applicable,   wherein   no
consequences for not complying with the shorter timeline of 90 days has
been provided. This provision, it was contended, was merely procedural
and concomitantly directory as held by this Court in various decisions
including Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India2
.
1 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6601.
2 (2005) 6 SCC 344.
Page | 4
9. Given this, the appellant put forth his contention that the deadline of
90 days could be relaxed keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a
case; and argued that he himself had personally appeared on all dates of
hearing and the lapse was on the part of his Counsel, due to which written
statement could not be filed. The appellant claims that severe prejudice
would be caused to him if the delay is not condoned for he would be left
defenceless in the civil suit. He accordingly seeks that this Court invoke its
inherent discretion under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC and grant one final
opportunity to file his written statement.
10. This was opposed on behalf of the respondent who asserted that
multiple chances had already been granted to the appellant by the Civil
Court, including opportunities beyond the maximum statutory period of 90
days as provided for filing of written statement under Order VIII Rule I of
CPC.   It   was   argued   that   continued   failure   to   adhere   to   the   multiple
deadlines set by the Civil Court and violation of Court directions, was
evidence   of   gross   negligence   on   part   of   the   appellant   at   best,   and   a
deliberate delaying tactic and abuse of the process of law at the worst.
ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION
11. At the outset, it must be noted that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
through Section 16 has amended the CPC in its application to commercial
disputes to provide as follows:
Page | 5
“16.  Amendments  to  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  1908  in  its
application   to   commercial   disputes.—(1)   The   provisions   of  the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, in their application to
any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value,
stand amended in the manner as specified in the Schedule.
(2) The Commercial Division and Commercial Court shall follow the
provisions   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure,   1908   (5   of   1908),   as
amended by this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial
dispute of a specified value.
(3) Where any provision of any Rule of the jurisdictional High Court or
any amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the State
Government is in conflict with the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, the provisions
of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Act shall prevail.”
12. Hence, it is clear that post coming into force of the aforesaid Act,
there are two regimes of civil procedure. Whereas commercial disputes [as
defined   under   Section   2(c)   of   the   Commercial   Courts   Act,   2015]   are
governed by the CPC as amended by Section 16 of the said Act; all other
non­commercial   disputes   fall   within   the   ambit   of   the   unamended   (or
original) provisions of CPC. 
13. The judgment of  Oku  Tech  (supra)  relied upon the learned Single
Judge is no doubt good law, as recently upheld by this Court in  SCG
Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. KS Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,3
but its ratio concerning the mandatory nature of the timeline prescribed for
filing   of   written   statement   and   the   lack   of   discretion   with   Courts   to
condone   any   delay   is   applicable  only   to   commercial   disputes,   as   the
3 AIR 2019 SC 2691.
Page | 6
judgment   was   undoubtedly   rendered   in   the   context   of   a   commercial
dispute qua the amended Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.
14. As   regard   the   timeline   for   filing   of   written   statement   in   a   noncommercial dispute, the observations of this Court in a catena of decisions,
most recently in Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala and Co.,4
holds   the   field.   Unamended   Order   VIII   Rule   I,   CPC   continues   to   be
directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of Courts to
condone certain delays. 
15. Let us, therefore, consider whether the appellant has made out a case
of exercising such discretionary jurisdiction? The present civil suit had
been filed by the respondent for a decree of specific performance of an
agreement to sell one floor of an ancestral property located in Devli Village,
Delhi   and   permanent   injunction   against   alienation   of   the   same   by
petitioner to third parties. Counsel for respondent has not contested the
non­commercial nature of the dispute, and even independently we are
satisfied that the dispute does not fall within the parameters specified
under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and in particular
sub­clause (vii), as the immovable property here is not of a nature which is
“used exclusively in trade or commerce”. Hence, the appellant is correct in
contending that the High Court overlooked the nature of the dispute and
4 (2018) 6 SCC 639.
Page | 7
mistakenly applied the ratio of a case rendered in light of a modified
version of the Code of Civil Procedure, which would only be applicable to
commercial disputes.
16. However, it would be gainsaid that although the unamended Order
VIII Rule 1 of CPC is directory, it cannot be interpreted to bestow a free
hand to on any litigant or lawyer to file written statement at their own
sweet­will   and/or   to   prolong   the   lis.   The   legislative   objective   behind
prescription of timelines under the CPC must be given due weightage so
that the disputes are resolved in a time­bound manner. Inherent discretion
of Courts, like the ability to condone delays under Order VIII Rule 1 is a
fairly defined concept and its contours have been shaped through judicial
decisions over the ages. Illustratively, extreme hardship or delays occurring
due to factors beyond control of parties despite proactive diligence, may be
just and equitable instances for condonation of delay. 
17. However,   it   is   clear   from   the   facts   on   record   that   numerous
opportunities   had   been   accorded   to   the   appellant.   He   was   served   on
01.05.2017 and entered appearance through counsel on 15.05.2017. As
per Order VIII Rule I of CPC, the appellant ideally ought to have filed his
written statement by 31.05.2017; and at the very latest by 30.07.2017. In
addition to two separate deadlines for filing of the written statement within
Page | 8
the 90­day timeframe prescribed by the ‘original’ Order VIII Rule 1, the
Civil Court even post expiry of the 90­day period again gave one last and
final opportunity on 18.09.2017 subject to payment of costs of Rs 3,000.
None of these deadlines were complied with. Even on 11.10.2017, when the
Court finally closed the appellant’s ability to file written statement and
struck­off his defence from the record, no attempt was made to comply
with the process of law.
18. It   was   only   on   02.11.2017,   after   a   delay   of   95   days   post   the
maximum extendable period under the Proviso of Order VIII Rule 1, CPC
that the appellant claimed to have filed his written statement. Curiously
however, even by the next hearing on 03.11.2017, the appellant had failed
to provide a copy of the written statement to the respondent as had been
noted by the Civil Court.
19. The only defence taken to these repeated and blatant lapses is that
the appellant’s counsel was not turning up. No attempt has been made to
even proffer a reasoned justification or explanation, and it is clear that
appellant is seeking condonation in a casual manner. This ought not to be
permitted or encouraged. Courts must act stringently to ensure that all
proceedings are decided within reasonable time, and it is but the duty of
the judicial system to cultivate a culture of respecting deadlines and time
Page | 9
of the Court, its officers as well as of adversaries.
20. Routine condonations and cavalier attitudes towards the process of
law affects the administration of justice. It affects docket management of
Courts and causes avoidable delays, cost escalations and chaos. The effect
of this is borne not only by the litigants, but also commerce in the country
and the public­in­general who spend decades mired in technical processes.
21. It is obvious from the record that nothing prevented the appellant
from filing the written statement through counsel or in person.  He has,
thus, failed to give any cogent reason for the delay and is unable to satisfy
due diligence on his part though he is right in his submission that the
High Court erroneously relied upon the ratio of Oku Tech (supra).
22. Having held so, there could be no escape but to dismiss this appeal.
However, taking a lenient view given the unique circumstances of the case,
and without laying down the discretion being exercised hereinafter, as a
precedent, we direct that the written statement filed by the appellant on
02.11.2017 (as claimed), be taken on record with a copy to counsel for the
respondent within one week from today and further subject to payment of
costs of Rs. 25,000/­ to the respondent.
Page | 10
23. The orders of the courts below are thus set aside and the appeal is
disposed of in the above terms.
……………………….. CJI.
   (S. A. BOBDE)
  ………………………… J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
…………………………. J.
(SURYA KANT)
NEW DELHI
DATED : 20.01.2020
Page | 11