Back
H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
Yogesh A. – Appellant
Versus
Suryanarayana B. S. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The present respondent (plaintiff) had instituted a suit against the present appellants (defendants) in O.S.No.185/2015 in the Court of the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-36) (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Trial Court) for the relief of permanent injunction with respect to the suit schedule property which is said to be a House property bearing No.69, Konanakunte Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 40 ft. x 40 ft.
2. The defendants in the Trial Court (who are the appellants herein) though appeared through their counsel, did not file their Written Statement in-time. Taking that the defendants failed to file the Written Statement, the Trial Court proceeded to record the evidence of the plaintiff and after R.F.A.No.1825/2019 hearing their arguments, vide its judgment dtd. 6/7/2019, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants in the Trial Court have preferred the present appeal.
3. During the pendency of this appeal, due to the death of appellant No.1, the appeal of the appellant No.1 came to be abated. However, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellant No.1 i
The defendants deserved an opportunity to file the Written Statement, but should pay costs for the delay.
The main legal point established is that while the time schedule for filing a written statement should generally be honored, exceptional situations may warrant an extension to ensure a fair trial and....
The court ruled that the limitation for filing a written statement is strict and can only be extended in exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case.
The court held that procedural unfairness due to technical irregularities can justify allowing the filing of Written Statements after delays, emphasizing the importance of justice over procedural str....
court had no power to extend the period for filing of a written statement beyond 120 days, as Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC was mandatory.
The court held that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC are directory, allowing written statements to be filed beyond prescribed delays in exceptional circumstances, particularly to serve the int....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
