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

2022 Supreme(SC) 737

HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
BHARAT KALRA – Appellant
Versus
RAJ KISHAN CHABRA – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Gaurav Kumar Dalal, Pradeep Teotia, Ashok Bannidinni, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Shrey Ashat, Preetika Mishra, Vikrant Mehta, Sudhir Naagar, Advocates

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court on 12.08.2021 whereby delay of 193 days in filing of the written statement was not condoned.

3. Admittedly, the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff is not the one which is governed by the Commercial Court Act, 2015. Therefore, the time limit for filing of the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory in view of the judgment of this Court reported as ‘Kailash V. Nankhu & Ors.’ reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480.

4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we find that the delay in filing of the written statement could very well be compensated with costs but denying the benefit of filing of the written statement is unreasonable.

5. Consequently, we allow the present appeal. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. The written statement already filed is taken on record.

5. We do hope that the trial Court shall expedite the decision of the suit keeping in view the old age of the plaintiff.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

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