Back
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Sh. Mahesh Dutt Joshi – Appellant
Versus
Ajay Kumar Saxena – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
CM APPL. 15783/2023 (Exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 15785/2023 (Delay of 108 days in refiling the petition)
3. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the present petition.
4. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. The delay of 108 days in re-filing the present petition is condoned.
5. Application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 15784/2023 (For deletion the name of petitioner No.1 from memo of parties)
6. This is an application filed under Section XXII Rule 2 r/w Section 151 CPC, 1908 seeking leave of this Court to implead the LRs of the deceased petitioner.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after filing of the present petition, the petitioner No.1 unfortunately left for his heavenly abode on 02.12.2022 necessitating the filing of the present application.
8. It is also submitted that son of deceased petitioner No.1 is already arrayed as petitioner No.2 in the present petition.
9. In view of the aforesaid and the submissions ma
The importance of timely filing and the bona fides of the petitioner/defendant in allowing the amendment to the written statement.
Timely filing of amended plaints under Order VI Rule 18 of CPC, 1908 is crucial, and unexplained delays may lead to dismissal of the petition.
The court considered the delay in seeking amendment of pleadings and the relevance of the documents sought to be filed, highlighting the importance of timely filing and the need for cogent reasons fo....
The court condoned a significant delay in filing an appeal due to potential misleading submissions, emphasizing the importance of justice over procedural lapses.
The court established that the timeline for filing a written statement under the CPC is directory but requires sufficient justification for any delays, which was not demonstrated in this case.
The court emphasized the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations and the need for a justice-oriented approach in considering explanations for delay.
The court clarified that the time frame for filing written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 is directory, allowing for extensions in exceptional circumstances, emphasizing parties' responsibility i....
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
