Kailash v. Nanhku (2005)

In Kailash v. Nanhku (2005), the Supreme Court held that the 90-day limit in Order 8 Rule 1 CPC for filing a written statement is directory, not mandatory. Courts may accept a late written statement in exceptional, well-explained situations, even in election petitions. The goal of procedure is to speed justice, not to block it.

1. Does Order 8 Rule 1 CPC govern written statements in election petitions under the Representation of the People Act?
2. Do High Court rules for election trials override CPC timelines?
3. Is the 90-day limit in the proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 mandatory or directory?

• Order 8 Rule 1 CPC: sets a timeline for filing a written statement.
• Section 87(1), Representation of the People Act, 1951: election petitions are tried “as nearly as may be” under the CPC—with flexibility.
• Section 86(6), RPA and relevant High Court Rules: court may adjourn and manage timelines to ensure a fair trial.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It held that Order 8 Rule 1 is directory. The High Court has the power to accept a written statement filed beyond 90 days in exceptional circumstances. Here, the explanation was reasonable. The Court directed the written statement to be taken on record, subject to ₹5,000 costs to the respondent and compliance within four weeks.

• Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory. It aims to ensure speed, not to defeat justice.
• Courts are not powerless after 90 days. They may permit late filing for good cause.
• Election petition trials use CPC with flexibility via Section 87 RPA.
• No penal consequence is prescribed for missing the 90-day limit.

This case is a student favorite because it shows the balance between speed and fairness. Courts can be firm on timelines, yet they may relax them to prevent serious injustice. Use this case when you argue for accepting a late written statement with strong reasons and limited prejudice.

• Directory, not mandatory: Order 8 Rule 1 sets discipline, not a hard bar.
• Exceptional allowance: Late filing needs solid, recorded reasons.
• Costs & conditions: Courts may impose costs to offset delay.
• Election context: CPC applies flexibly under Section 87 RPA.

Mnemonic: “Delay OK, if Justice Says” — Directory rule, Outside 90 allowed, Just reasons, Section 87 flexibility.

1. Show cause: Explain the delay with dates and proof.
2. Show fairness: No real prejudice to the other side.
3. Offer balance: Agree to costs/conditions to keep the trial on track.

Issue: Is the 90-day limit for written statements under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC mandatory in election petitions?

Rule: Order 8 Rule 1 CPC; Sections 86(6) and 87 RPA; High Court’s case-management power.

Application: Delay arose from bereavement and filing error. Trial includes the written statement stage. No explicit penalty for crossing 90 days. Justice demanded acceptance with safeguards.

Conclusion: The provision is directory. Late filing may be accepted with reasons and conditions.

Directory Provision

A rule that guides conduct but allows limited relaxation to avoid injustice.

Written Statement

The defendant’s formal reply to the petition or plaint.

Condonation

Legal forgiveness of delay when sufficient cause is shown.

Election Petition

A case that challenges an election result under the RPA, 1951.