LANDMARK CASE

Kailash v. Nanhku

(2005) 4 SCC 480 · Supreme Court of India · Civil procedure

At a glance

Citation: (2005) 4 SCC 480
Court: Supreme Court of India
Area of law: Civil procedure
In one line: No, it is directory in ordinary civil suits, though delay must be justified.

1 Facts

In an election petition, the written statement was filed after the deadline.

2 Issue

Is the time limit for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 mandatory?

3 What the court decided

No, it is directory in ordinary civil suits, though delay must be justified.

4 Why it matters

Important for written statement timelines, which are strict in commercial suits.

5 Think about it

Why are commercial suits treated differently?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Civil procedure

Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.