Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
Gullu G. Talreja, S/o. Geleram Talreja – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Sisodia, S/o. Hastimal Sisodia – Respondent
ORDER :
S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.
1. Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 07.03.2022 passed on I.A.No.9 in O.S.No.391/2011 by the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioner has filed O.S.No.391/2011 before the Jurisdictional Civil Court seeking the relief of declaration and consequential relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction in respect to the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.1 who had entered appearance in the said suit on 08.08.2011 had filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and under Section 11 of CPC. Defendant No.2 has been placed ex-parte in the suit. Though defendant No.1 had filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3, he had not filed his written statement opposing the suit claim. After the suit was posted for passing ex-parte judgment, I.A.No.9 was filed on behalf of the defendant under Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the written statement and receive his written statement. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff
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 affirmed that procedural rules regarding the filing of written statements can be interpreted flexibly to ensure justice, allowing extensions in exceptional circumstances.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time limit for filing a written statement under the Civil Procedure Code should be treated as directory, and the court should balance the ....
The court emphasized the importance of complying with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Commercial Courts Act 2015, regarding the filing of written statements and the exten....
The striking off of a defendant's defence due to late filing of a written statement, despite court's extension, is unjustifiable, and such extensions are regarded as directory rather than mandatory, ....
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....
The court holds that delays in filing additional written statements can be condoned under Rule 9 of Order VIII provided there is sufficient cause and no prejudice is caused to the opposing party.
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....
The court affirmed that defendants lose the right to file a written statement if not submitted within the prescribed 120 days, highlighting the necessity of adhering to procedural timelines in commer....
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
