Karnataka Amendment to CPC shall not be construed as completely excluding the judicial discretion of the Civil Court to receive the written statement beyond 120 days in exceptionally rare cases where the refusal would result in grave miscarriage of justice. Karnataka High Court.

Basavaraj S. v. State of Karnataka

W.P. No. 8032/2026 decided on 28 July 2026 and connected matter.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum

IMPORTANT PARAGRAPHS

The present writ petitions raise an issue of considerable constitutional and institutional significance concerning the extent of the State Legislature’s power to amend the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the code’) and the limits of such legislative power when the field sought to be occupied has already been authoritatively interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while exercising its constitutional role under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 

2. The challenge in the present proceedings is directed against Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024 (Act No.40 of 2025) (for short ‘Amendment Act’), insofar as it introduces the third proviso to Rule 1 Order V and proviso to Rule 1 and Rule 10 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, prescribing an absolute outer limit of one hundred and twenty days for filing of the written statement and declaring that upon expiry of the said period, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not permit the written statement to be taken on record and also challenge to newly inserted Section 158-A as introduced by the Amendment Act. 

3. Though the challenge is formally directed against Section 4 of the Amendment Act, the issues arising for consideration transcend the validity of a mere procedural amendment. The controversy touches upon the relationship between legislative power and judicial interpretation, the constitutional guarantee of fair procedure, the scope of inherent powers preserved under Section 151 of the Code, the doctrine of separation of powers and the principle that procedural law is intended to facilitate justice rather than defeat it. 

7. The Karnataka Legislature has now enacted the Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024, which came into force with effect from 05.06.2025. The Statement of Objects and Reasons discloses that the amendment has been enacted with the object of ensuring expeditious disposal of civil disputes and providing speedy justice. Section 4 of the Amendment Act introduces a third proviso to Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 and proviso to Rule 10 of Order VIII providing that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within thirty days, the Court may permit the same to be filed on such later date, but not beyond one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons, and further mandates that upon expiry of the said period, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not permit the written statement to be taken on record. 

8. The relevant provisions introduced by the Amendment Act, 2024, are extracted below. Section 4(i) of the Amendment Act inserts the following third proviso to Order V Rule 1(1): “Provided also that where the defendant fails to file the Written Statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the Written Statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the Written Statement and the Court shall not allow the Written Statement to be taken on record.” Section 4(iv) of the Amendment Act inserts the following proviso to Order VIII Rule 10: “ (d) in rule 10, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:– ?Provided further that no Court shall make an order to extend the time provided under rule 1 of this order for filing of the Written Statement.”

VI. Points for Consideration

23. In the light of the pleadings, submissions and statutory framework, the following points arise for consideration:

(i) Whether Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024, insofar as it prescribes a rigid outer limit of one hundred and twenty days for filing the written statement and excludes judicial discretion, is an attempt by the State Legislature to override or nullify the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, and if so, whether such legislative action is constitutionally impermissible?

(ii) Whether the impugned amendment, by taking away judicial discretion to receive written statements beyond one hundred and twenty days, runs contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association and the subsequent judgments following the said decision?

(iii) Whether the State Legislature, while exercising its legislative power to amend procedural law under the Concurrent List, can impose an absolute embargo upon the inherent powers of the Civil Court preserved under Section 151 of the Code and the judicial discretion recognised under Order VIII Rule 10?

(iv) Whether the Legislature, having introduced an absolute embargo under the third proviso to Order V Rule 1, without correspondingly amending Order VIII Rule 10, Section 151 and has created an apparent inconsistency within the Code itself, and whether such partial legislative amendment warrants reading down the impugned provision so as to preserve the harmonious operation of the Code?  

(v) Whether the first proviso to order VIII rule 10, inserted by section 4(iv)(d) of the Karnataka Amendment Act, 2024, can be construed as nullifying the substantive provision of rule 10 and the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association(supra).

(vi) Whether the impugned provision results in denial of a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend civil proceedings, particularly those involving immovable properties situated in rural areas where procurement of foundational revenue records is often beyond the control of the litigants?

(vii) Whether Section 158A of the Amendment Act is consistent with the scheme of Sections 122 to 127 of the Code relating to the rule-making power of the High Courts?

(viii) Whether the impugned amendment, though enacted with the objective of ensuring expeditious disposal of civil suits, disproportionately impairs access to justice and is liable to be read down in the light of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court?

Ratio Decidendi of Salem Advocate Bar Association

42. The true ratio of Salem Advocate Bar Association (supra) may therefore be summarized thus:

(a) the ninety-day period is directory;

(b) procedural timelines are intended to expedite justice and not defeat adjudication;

(c) use of the word “shall” is not determinative;

(d) absence of express penal consequences is significant;

(e) Order VIII Rules 1 and 10 must be harmoniously construed;

(f) Rule 10 preserves judicial discretion;

(g) inherent judicial powers are not extinguished;

(h) extension beyond ninety days is permissible only in exceptionally hard cases;

(i) reasons must be recorded; 

(j) discretion cannot be exercised routinely.

XXIII. Order 183. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER (i) The writ petitions are allowed in part.

(ii) The third proviso inserted to Order V Rule 1, third proviso inserted to Rule 1 of Order VIII and proviso to Rule 10 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure by Section 4 of the Karnataka Amendment Act, 2024 is read down in the manner indicated in paragraphs 131, 132, 157 and 158 of this judgment.

(iii) Therefore the constitutional challenge to Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024 is not accepted

(iv) The expressions “the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement” and “the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record” shall not be construed as completely excluding the judicial discretion of the Civil Court in exceptionally rare cases where refusal would result in grave miscarriage of justice.

(v) It is declared that Section 158-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024 shall be construed harmoniously with the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure and shall not be interpreted as overriding or abrogating the statutory rulemaking powers of the High Court preserved under Sections 122 to 127 of the Code, the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution, or the binding law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 141. To the aforesaid extent, Section 158-A stands read down.

(vi) The jurisdiction preserved by this judgment to receive a written statement beyond the prescribed period shall be exercised by all Civil Courts in the State only in strict adherence to the principles, limitations and illustrative guidelines contained in paragraph 162 of this judgment, and only upon recording reasons demonstrating the existence of exceptional and compelling circumstances.

(vii) It is further declared that the provisions introduced by Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024 shall operate prospectively and shall apply only to suits instituted on or after the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. Suits instituted prior thereto shall continue to be governed by the unamended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, in terms of the law declared by this Court in Smt. T.Gayathri and Another v. Smt. Prabhajit Dhariwal (W.P. No.8090 of 2026).

Before parting, this Court places on record its sincere appreciation for the valuable research assistance rendered by Ms. Varsha.V and Ms. Anuja Malai, Law Researchers attached to this Court.

Summary. AI generated.Background

The petitions challenged the constitutional validity of Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024 (Act No. 40 of 2025) introducing an absolute 120-day limit for filing written statements in ordinary civil suits and the newly inserted Section 158A. The principal contention was that the amendment virtually nullified the law declared by the Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, which held that the time limit under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and that courts retain limited discretion in exceptional cases.

Issues

Whether the State Legislature could override the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 by removing judicial discretion.

Whether the amendment impermissibly curtailed the inherent powers of civil courts under Section 151 CPC.

Whether the amendment should be struck down or read down.

Whether Section 158A was consistent with the High Court's rule-making power under Sections 122–127 CPC.

Decision

The High Court did not strike down the Karnataka Amendment. Instead, it read down the impugned provisions to preserve their constitutional validity.

The Court held that the amendment must be interpreted harmoniously with Order VIII Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC, so that civil courts retain a limited residual discretion to receive a written statement even beyond 120 days in rare, exceptional and deserving cases, subject to stringent conditions and recorded reasons. Such an interpretation preserves both the legislative object of expeditious trials and the binding law declared by the Supreme Court.

Important Legal Principles

1. Procedural law is meant to advance justice

Procedural provisions are handmaids of justice and should ordinarily facilitate adjudication on merits rather than defeat substantive rights by excessive technicality.

2. State Legislature cannot nullify Supreme Court precedent

Although a State Legislature may amend procedural law under the Concurrent List, it cannot simply extinguish judicial discretion that forms the ratio of a binding Supreme Court decision under Article 141 without altering the statutory foundation.

3. Reading down preferred over striking down

Where a statutory provision is capable of a constitutional interpretation, courts should adopt the doctrine of reading down to preserve legislative intent while ensuring conformity with constitutional principles.

4. Judicial discretion survives beyond 120 days

The 120-day limit is intended to enforce procedural discipline. However, civil courts are not rendered completely powerless after expiry of that period. In exceptional cases where refusal would result in manifest injustice, the court may receive the written statement by exercising its limited judicial discretion.

5. Order VIII Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC remain operative

Since the Legislature did not amend the substantive portion of Order VIII Rule 10 or Section 151 CPC, those provisions continue to preserve the court's inherent jurisdiction and discretionary powers. The amendment cannot be construed so as to render those provisions otiose.

6. Harmonious construction

Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC must be read harmoniously so that procedural discipline coexists with limited judicial discretion recognised by the Supreme Court.

7. Commercial Courts stand on a different footing

The strict and absolute 120-day embargo under the Commercial Courts Act cannot automatically be imported into ordinary civil litigation involving property disputes, partition suits, agricultural lands and similar matters. Commercial litigation constitutes a distinct legislative scheme.

8. Rural property disputes require procedural flexibility

Ordinary civil litigation in Karnataka often requires collection of revenue records such as RTCs, mutation extracts, Tippani, survey sketches and grant records. Genuine delays in obtaining such public documents may justify exercise of judicial discretion in exceptional cases.

9. Access to justice is part of Article 14

An inflexible forfeiture of the right to defend may deny a fair opportunity to contest valuable civil rights and therefore procedural provisions must be interpreted consistently with constitutional guarantees of fairness and access to justice.

10. Judicial discretion is exceptional—not routine

Extension beyond 120 days is not a matter of right. It can be granted only in extraordinary circumstances, upon recording cogent reasons and on appropriate terms, including costs, so that procedural discipline is maintained.