The Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the state government's amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which prescribes a 120-day outer limit for filing written statements in civil suits. The ruling was delivered in the combined hearing of WP No. 8032 of 2026 and WP No. 9372 of 2026, titled Shri Basavaraj S. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
The court examined the validity of the amendment introduced by the State of Karnataka, which sought to impose a strict timeframe for defendants to file their written statements following the service of summons. The petitioners challenged the provision on the grounds that it infringed upon the right to defend oneself and undermined judicial discretion in managing civil proceedings.
In its judgment, the court affirmed that the legislature possesses the authority to prescribe procedural timelines under the Code of Civil Procedure, provided such prescriptions do not violate fundamental rights or defeat the ends of justice. It observed that the 120-day limit serves the legitimate objective of preventing unnecessary delays in litigation and promoting judicial efficiency.
The bench emphasized that the provision is not absolute and does not strip trial courts of their inherent power to manage proceedings. It explicitly held that courts retain discretion to grant extensions beyond the 120-day period in exceptional cases, such as where the defendant faces genuine impediments, including illness, lack of access to legal advice, or other unavoidable circumstances.
The court clarified that the amendment is directory in nature rather than mandatory, meaning that while the 120-day period is the prescribed norm, failure to comply does not automatically result in the rejection of the written statement or the imposition of penalties. Instead, the court retains the power to condone delay upon being satisfied that the reasons for delay are justified and that no prejudice is caused to the opposite party.
The judgment further noted that the provision must be read harmoniously with Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs the filing of written statements. The court reiterated that the ultimate aim of procedural rules is to facilitate fair and expeditious trial, not to create technical barriers to justice.
In disposing of the petitions, the court upheld the validity of the amendment but directed that trial courts exercise their discretion judiciously and record reasons when granting extensions. It stressed that mechanical application of the time limit without considering the facts of each case would defeat the purpose of the provision.
The ruling provides clarity on the interplay between legislative prescription of procedural timelines and judicial discretion in civil litigation. It balances the need for timely resolution of disputes with the safeguard that no litigant should be deprived of a fair opportunity to defend themselves due to inflexible adherence to timelines.
The decision is expected to influence how trial courts across Karnataka manage written statement filings, ensuring compliance with the 120-day norm while retaining the flexibility to accommodate genuine difficulties faced by defendants. The court’s approach reflects a pragmatic interpretation of procedural law, prioritizing substance over mere technical compliance.