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

2003 Supreme(Del) 437

MANMOHAN SARIN
SUKHDEV SINGH GAMBHIR – Appellant
Versus
AMRIT PAL SINGH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.S.GAMBHIR, P.S.Sharda, VIPIN SANGHI

Manmohan Sarin

( 1 ) BY this order, I would be deciding the question whether the written statement filed by the defendants on 4th April, 2003, be permitted to be taken on record by condoning the delay in filing or not?

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for plaintiff submits that the written statement has not been filed within the prescribed period. Not only that, it has been filed much beyond 90 days period, upto which the Court could extend the time exercising powers under Order V Rule 1 and Section 148 of the CPC. Written statement is stated to have been filed by the defendants on 4th April, 2003, while defendants are stated to have given eight weeks time for filing the written statement on 25th May, 1999. Undoubtedly, written statement has been filed after a period of nearly four and half years. The explanation offered by Mr. Vipin Sanghi, learned counsel for the defendant is that this being a suit for partition amongst family members, bona fide attempts were being made to reach at a settlement. It is on account of prolonged negotiations and talks, that resulted in the delay in filing of the written statement.

( 3 ) MR. SANGHI submits that the written statement had been ready as far back as







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