Jammu, October 1: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the constitutional validity of the amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) prescribing a 120-day outer limit for filing a written statement, while holding that Civil Courts may permit a delayed filing in exceptionally hard cases where compliance was rendered genuinely impossible due to circumstances beyond the defendant’s control.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Dhar pronounced the judgment on September 28, 2026, while deciding a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity and legality of S.O. 1123(E) dated March 18, 2020. The notification introduced amendments to Order V and Order VIII of the CPC as applicable to the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.
120-Day Deadline Upheld
The principal issue before the Court was the provision prescribing a maximum period of 120 days from the date of service of summons for filing a written statement.
Under the amended provisions, failure to file the written statement within the prescribed period ordinarily results in forfeiture of the defendant’s right to file the written statement, with the Court being barred from taking it on record.
The petitioners had challenged the amendments on several grounds, including the contention that the provisions excessively restricted the judicial discretion of Civil Courts and created an unduly rigid procedural framework even in ordinary civil suits.
The Union of India defended the amendments, maintaining that they were within the powers conferred upon the Central Government under Section 96 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, and were aimed, among other objectives, at preventing delays in civil litigation.
Court Declares Amendments Constitutionally Valid
After examining the legislative history, statutory framework and submissions advanced by the parties, the Division Bench held that the amended provisions of Order V and Order VIII CPC are constitutionally valid.
However, while upholding the 120-day limitation, the Bench held that the provision must be read in a manner that preserves a very narrow judicial discretion in exceptional cases.
The Court made it clear that the 120-day period remains the general rule and must ordinarily be followed strictly. A defendant who fails to file the written statement within the prescribed period would normally lose the right to do so.
Exception Only Where Compliance Becomes Genuinely Impossible
At the same time, the Bench recognised that extraordinary circumstances may arise in which a defendant is genuinely incapacitated from complying with the statutory deadline for reasons beyond his or her control.
The Court referred to circumstances such as.Prolonged and serious illness.Natural calamities.Physical or legal disability;.Unavoidable delay in obtaining indispensable public documents; and.Delays arising from genuine efforts to resolve a dispute through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
The Court clarified that these circumstances are illustrative and not exhaustive.
Heavy Burden on Defendant
The Bench, however, cautioned that the exceptional power cannot be converted into a routine mechanism for condoning delays.
A defendant seeking permission to file a written statement after the 120-day period would carry a heavy burden to establish genuine impossibility through cogent and convincing material.
Mere negligence, lack of diligence, administrative inconvenience or ordinary procedural difficulties would not, by themselves, justify departure from the statutory timeline.
Costs and Reasons Mandatory
The High Court further directed that whenever a Civil Court exercises the exceptional power to permit a delayed written statement, the plaintiff should be compensated through adequate costs.
The concerned Civil Court must also record specific reasons for allowing the written statement to be taken on record beyond the statutory period.
The safeguards, the Court indicated, are intended to ensure that the exception remains confined to genuinely extraordinary situations and does not undermine the legislative objective of expediting civil proceedings.
Individual Petitions to Be Listed Before Single Judge
The Division Bench has directed that the individual petitions be segregated and placed before the concerned Single Judge during the fourth week of October 2026.
The judgment had been reserved on August 13, 2026, and was pronounced on September 28, 2026. The judgment has been marked reportable.
Court’s Position Summarised
The ruling effectively establishes three key principles: the amended CPC provisions are constitutionally valid; the 120-day deadline is ordinarily mandatory and must be strictly adhered to; and departure from the deadline can be permitted only in exceptionally hard cases where the defendant establishes that circumstances beyond his or her control made compliance genuinely impossible.
Such permission remains subject to adequate costs, cogent material demonstrating the exceptional circumstances, and a reasoned order by the Civil Court.(KNC)
