SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 1781

CYRIAC JOSEPH, S.B.SINHA
MOHAMMED YUSUF – Appellant
Versus
FAIJ MOHAMMAD – Respondent


Judgement Key Points
  • The 90-day time limit under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for filing a written statement is technically mandatory but directory in nature, permitting courts to extend it in rarest of rare cases to avoid hardship. [judgement_act_referred] (!) [1000489100012][1000489100013]
  • Courts may extend time for filing written statement beyond 90 days under Section 148 CPC read with Order VIII Rule 1 only upon proper satisfaction of exceptional circumstances, not automatically. [judgement_act_referred] (!) [1000489100013][1000489100014]
  • High Courts exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 cannot casually permit filing of written statement after significant delay, such as 2 years, as it violates statutory provisions. [judgement_act_referred] (!) (!) [1000489100015][1000489100016]
  • Rejection of application to file written statement after summons service on 6.7.2002, with first appearance on 19.7.2002 and application filed around 31.1.2005 without condonation, upheld by trial and revisional courts. (!) [1000489100001][1000489100002][1000489100003][1000489100004][1000489100005][1000489100006][1000489100007]
  • High Court order allowing writ petition to take written statement on record after 3 years, subject to costs, set aside for lack of reasons and improper exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. (!) (!) [1000489100008][1000489100009][1000489100010][1000489100015][1000489100016][1000489100017]
  • Extensions beyond 90 days must be granted cautiously, only in exceptional cases with recorded reasons, to uphold legislative intent against delays. (!) (!) (!) [1000489100012][1000489100013][1000489100014]

( 1 ) LEAVE granted. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 20. 9. 1997 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents herein questioning the validity of an order dated 29. 8. 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mathura in civil Revision No. 322/2005 affirming the order dated 24. 10. 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge whereby and whereunder while rejecting the application filed by the appellant herein under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a date was fixed for recording the evidence of the plaintiffs and the application filed by the respondents herein praying for condoning the delay in filing the written statement was rejected.

( 2 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

( 3 ) APPELLANT herein filed a suit for a decree for permanent injunction in the year 2002. A separate application for grant of temporary injunction was also filed. Summons upon the defendants were served on 6. 7. 2002. The defendants appeared through their learned advocate on 19. 7. 2002.

( 4 ) APPELLANT filed an application for grant of temporary injunction which wa


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top