Impact of closing of Right to File Written Statement: SC Rules

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India recently clarified the fatal impact of closing of Right to File Written Statement in consumer disputes. When a builder or opponent faces the consequence of the delay in filing the written statement, they essentially lose the ability to introduce new factual defenses or explanations for service deficiencies. While there is limited availability of defence after failing to file the written statement, the scope of participation in consumer complaint proceedings after closure of right to file the written statement is strictly confined to legal arguments and cross-examination. This Judgment emphasizes that the scope of written submissions for the opponent who failed to file the written statement cannot be used to indirectly introduce facts that were never pleaded, ensuring that complainants are not blindsided by late-stage evidence.

STAY UPDATED: We will regularly update this section with the most recent Judgments from the Hon’ble Supreme Court or Hon’ble High Courts regarding the impact of closing of Right to File Written Statement. Staying informed on the consequence of the delay in filing the written statement is vital for both complainants and opponents to navigate the scope of participation in consumer complaint proceedings after closure of right to file the written statement effectively.

Add the Direct Link of the High Court and Supreme Court

YOUTUBE VIDEO: We are creating an in-depth video to explain the impact of closing of Right to File Written Statement in an easy-to-understand audio-visual format. This video will break down the availability of defence after failing to file the written statement and the legal scope of written submissions for the opponent who failed to file the written statement based on this landmark Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment.

If you are navigating a consumer dispute and need to understand the impact of closing of Right to File Written Statement or the consequence of the delay in filing the written statement in your specific case, we recommend seeking professional advice. Schedule an appointment with an advocate to understand the visitor’s query and explore the scope of participation in consumer complaint proceedings after closure of right to file the written statement through this link:

Schedule an Appointment

Below is a detailed guide exploring the impact of closing of Right to File Written Statement and the legal availability of defence after failing to file the written statement. Use this Table of Contents to navigate through the scope of written submissions for the opponent who failed to file the written statement and the overall scope of participation in consumer complaint proceedings after closure of right to file the written statement.

1. Bibliographic Details of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment
2. Contextualizing the Dispute: Brief Facts and Timelines
- 2.1 Initial grievances and the consequence of the delay in filing the written statement
- 2.2 Material events and chronology of the litigation
3. Proceedings before the Hon’ble NCDRC
- 3.1 Complainant Perspective: Objection to the introduction of new facts without pleadings
- 3.2 Opponent Perspective: Attempted availability of defence
4. Core Issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
5. Legal Precedents relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
- 5.1 Analysis of Case Law regarding the availability of defence
6. The legal impact of closing of Right to File Written Statement
- 6.1 Defining the scope of participation in consumer complaint proceedings
- 6.2 Restricted scope of written submissions for the opponent
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Final Directives
- 7.1 Operative portion and modification of the Hon’ble NCDRC’s compensation formula
8. Learning for the Opponent and Complainant from this Judgment
- 8.1 Practical takeaways on the impact of closing of Right to File Written Statement
9. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Bibliographic Details of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment on the impact of closing of Right to File Written Statement

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has provided a definitive ruling on the procedural limits of a party that faces the consequence of the delay in filing the written statement. This Judgment clarifies that the impact of closing of Right to File Written Statement prevents any indirect introduction of factual defenses.

Title of the Judgment: Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel & Ors. Versus M/s. S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited & Ors.
Name of the Judges: The Judgment was delivered by the bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar.
Citation Number: 2024 INSC 542 (Civil Appeal No. 8176 of 2022).
Date of the Judgment: July 22, 2024.

2. Contextualizing the Dispute: Brief Facts and Timelines

The dispute centers on a residential project named ‘Fiesta Homes by SJR Prime’. The complainants, comprising 46 flat buyers, alleged a significant deficiency in service due to an inordinate delay in handing over possession.

2.1 Initial grievances and the consequence of the delay in filing the written statement

The parties entered into a Construction Agreement on March 31, 2012. Under Clause 6.1, the builder was obligated to deliver the apartments by March 2014, with a six-month grace period ending in September 2014. The consequence of the delay in filing the written statement became a central theme when the builder failed to file their response before the Hon’ble NCDRC, even after being aware of the pending consumer complaint.

2.2 Material events and chronology of the litigation

May 2019: The complainants filed Consumer Case No. 945 of 2019 before the Hon’ble NCDRC.
January 27, 2021: The Hon’ble NCDRC issued a notice warning the builder that the right to file a written statement would be closed if not filed within thirty days.
August 11, 2021: The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in an earlier appeal, declared that the builder had “forfeited his right to have filed written statement”.
September 15, 2022: The Hon’ble NCDRC partially allowed the complaint but used a formula for compensation that the complainants challenged.

3. Proceedings before the Hon’ble NCDRC: The impact of closing of Right to File Written Statement

The litigation before the Hon’ble NCDRC showcased a struggle over the availability of defence after failing to file the written statement.

3.1 Complainant Perspective: Objection to the introduction of new facts without pleadings

The complainants argued that the Hon’ble NCDRC overstepped by allowing the builder to introduce fresh facts through written submissions. They contended that the impact of closing of Right to File Written Statement should have barred the builder from providing any explanation for the delay. The buyers maintained that these “newly introduced facts” improperly influenced the Hon’ble NCDRC’s compensation formula.

3.2 Opponent Perspective: Attempted availability of defence after failing to file the written statement

The builder, acting as the opponent, attempted to use written submissions as a backdoor for their missing pleadings. They claimed that the “complainants do not deserve any compensation” and provided specific reasons for the delay. They effectively tried to create an availability of defence after failing to file the written statement by offering justifications that were never part of a formal written statement.

4. Core Issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

The core issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was to define the exact impact of closing of Right to File Written Statement. We observed that the Court had to decide if a party, having forfeited their right to plead, could still introduce factual justifications through written submissions. Additionally, the Court addressed whether the Hon’ble NCDRC could ignore the contractual “March 2014” due date in favor of a formula linked to the 11th instalment of payment.

5. Legal Precedents relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

The Hon’ble Supreme Court analyzed several authorities to determine the scope of participation in consumer complaint proceedings after closure of right to file the written statement.

5.1 Analysis of Case Law regarding the availability of defence after failing to file the written statement

Nanda Dulal Pradhan & Anr. v. Dibakar Pradhan & Anr.: The Court noted that even without a written statement, a defendant is “permitted to participate in the suit proceedings and cross examine the witnesses”.
Nalini Sunder v. GV Sunder: The Court affirmed the rule that “no amount of evidence can prove a case of a party who had not set up the same in his/her pleadings”.
R.V. Prasannakumaar & others. v. Mantri Castles Private Limited & Another: This Judgment was cited to show that compensation must be fixed according to the agreement. The Court held that fixing the date as per the agreement was just and reasonable.

6. The legal impact of closing of Right to File Written Statement

The Hon’ble Court emphasized that the impact of closing of Right to File Written Statement is a fundamental bar on factual evidence.

6.1 Defining the scope of participation in consumer complaint proceedings after closure of right to file the written statement

The Court clarified that the scope of participation in consumer complaint proceedings after closure of right to file the written statement allows an opponent to argue legal questions or challenge the admissibility of the complainant’s evidence. However, it specifically “bar[s] the opposite party… to bring in pleadings, indirectly to introduce its/his case”.

6.2 Restricted scope of written submissions for the opponent who failed to file the written statement

The Judgment strictly held that the scope of written submissions for the opponent who failed to file the written statement cannot be used to circumvent the forfeiture of pleadings. The Hon’ble Court remarked that “what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly”. Consequently, any factual defense introduced via submissions was deemed legally inconsequential.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Final Directives

The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the Hon’ble NCDRC failed to consider the relevant conditions of the Construction Agreement.

7.1 Operative portion and modification of the Hon’ble NCDRC’s compensation formula

Compensation Modification: The Court ordered that interest at 6% per annum be paid from September 2014 (March 2014 + 6 months grace) until the date of possession.
Construction Orders: The builder must construct the Green Jogging Track and Convenience Store within two months.
Declined Reliefs: The prayer for refund of car parking fees and legal fees was declined due to previous precedents and a lack of evidence.

8. Learning for the Opponent and Complainant from this Judgment

8.1 Practical takeaways on the impact of closing of Right to File Written Statement

For the Complainant: The impact of closing of Right to File Written Statement is your strongest procedural shield. If the builder has not filed a written statement, they cannot explain why they were late or introduce “exceptional circumstances” to reduce compensation.
For the Opponent: To avoid the consequence of the delay in filing the written statement, one must adhere to the 30-day filing rule. If you miss this window, your availability of defence after failing to file the written statement is limited to cross-examining the buyer’s evidence.

9. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Q: What is the primary impact of closing of Right to File Written Statement for a builder? The primary impact is that the builder is legally barred from introducing any factual defenses or explanations for the delay in construction. While they can still participate in the case, they cannot present a case for which no foundation was laid in a formal pleading.

2. Q: What is the consequence of the delay in filing the written statement beyond the 30-day limit? The consequence is the forfeiture of the right to file a defense. Once this right is closed, the opponent cannot later use written submissions to introduce the reasons or objections that should have been included in a written statement.

3. Q: Is there any availability of defence after failing to file the written statement? The availability of defense is extremely limited. The opponent is permitted only to argue legal questions based on existing laws or challenge the admissibility of the complainant’s evidence. They cannot introduce “new facts” to resist the claims.

4. Q: What is the scope of participation in consumer complaint proceedings after closure of right to file the written statement? The opponent retains the right to participate in the proceedings and can cross-examine the witnesses of the complainant. However, this participation does not allow them to build a new case or provide evidence for facts not already on record.

5. Q: What is the legal scope of written submissions for the opponent who failed to file the written statement? The scope is restricted to legal arguments and authorities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly,” meaning written submissions cannot be used to bypass the forfeiture of the right to file a written statement.

6. Q: Can the Hon’ble NCDRC create a new compensation formula based on facts introduced after the right to file a written statement is closed? No. The Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that the Hon’ble NCDRC was not justified in ignoring the contractual due date in favor of a formula based on construction instalments when those justifications were introduced improperly.

7. Q: How does the introduction of new facts without pleadings affect the complainant? It unfairly prejudices the complainant by allowing the opponent to raise defenses at a late stage that were never formally pleaded. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that such newly introduced facts should be considered inconsequential if the right to file a written statement was forfeited.

8. Q: Why did the Hon’ble Supreme Court rely on the R.V. Prasannakumaar case? The Court relied on this precedent to affirm that compensation for delay should be fixed according to the terms of the Construction Agreement rather than arbitrary construction milestones.

9. Q: Can a builder cross-examine the buyer even if their right to file a written statement is closed? Yes, the right to cross-examine remains protected as part of the legal scope of participation, even after the forfeiture of the right to file a written statement.

10. Q: What happens if an opponent tries to use written submissions to explain delays? The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such explanations cannot be looked at to the extent they carry pleadings and reasons that should have been included in a formal written statement.

Connect with a Legal Professional

Have questions about legal matters? Book a Brief Consultation with our Advocate to receive clear, professional guidance tailored to your specific concerns. Let us assist you in navigating your Legal challenges with confidence.

Book Appointment

Disclaimer: In compliance with the Bar Council of India guidelines, this article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation for legal services.

Fatal impact of closing of Right to File Written Statement

Table of Contents