Bhupinder Singh v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 2016;P&H 262.

To avoid a head on clash between the order of the court (to meet the ends of Justice) and order
VIII Rule 10 of the CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE the doctrine of Harmonious Construction
has been applied in this case. The court harmonized both the things in such a way that the effect
has been given to both based on the circumstances.

In this case the petitioners failed to submit their written statement before the court in regard with
their case under hearing. So the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the defence of
the petitioners has been struck off on the ground of delay in filing the written statement. Through
this petition, the petitioner seeked permission for one effective opportunity to file written
statement.

Inorder to decide on this case code of civil procedure is referred.

On referring CPC, it was found that the Order 8 rule 1 and rule 10 are in conflict with each other.

Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC states The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of
service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:
Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period
of thirty day, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by
the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety
days from the date of service of summons. Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC states Where any
party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the
same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall
pronounce judgment against him, or make such order is relating to the suit as it thinks fit
and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up

Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC states that the defendant shall present a written statement of his defence
within 30 days of summons on him. And if the defendant fails to fils such written statement
withtin 30 days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day as may be specified by the
court.
Rule 10 of CPC states that where any party from whom written statement is required under rule 1
and 9 fails to present the same within the time limit fixed by the court, the court shall pronounce
judgement against him and pronouncement of such a decree shall be drawn up.

The court applied harmonious construction in construing the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 and
Rule 10 of CPC.

The effect was that it was held that under Order 8 Rule 10 of CPC, the Court has discretionary
power to allow the defendant to file written statement even after expiry of period of 90 day.

Moreover, it was held that the said provision being rule of procedure has to be held to be
directory and not mandatory in nature. This provision has to be applied with some flexibility and
not with rigidity or inflexibility. The court relied on supremecourts decision in the case of Salem
Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India.