Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Rajeshwar Nath Kaul - Appellant
Versus
Jagbir Singh - Respondent
CM(M) 1566 of 2023 & CM Appls. 49356 of 2023, 49357 of 2023
Decided On : 22-09-2023
Adjournments - Civil Procedure - The court declined to interfere with the Trial Court's discretion in permitting the written statement to be taken on record, but directed the Trial Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Order 17 CPC and not grant unnecessary adjournments to the Respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the plaintiff, sought relief from the Trial Court's laxity in allowing the respondent, the defendant, to take multiple adjournments for filing the written statement.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to interfere with the Trial Court's discretion in permitting the written statement to be taken on record, but directed the Trial Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Order 17 CPC and not grant unnecessary adjournments to the Respondent.
Issues: The issue was whether the Trial Court's decision to permit the written statement to be taken on record and grant adjournments to the Respondent was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while it would not interfere with the Trial Court's discretion, it directed the Trial Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Order 17 CPC and not grant unnecessary adjournments to the Respondent.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with directions to the Trial Court to not grant unnecessary adjournments to the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 49357/2023 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 1566/2023 & CM APPL. 49356/2023
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 10.08.2023 passed by ASCJ/JSCC/GJ, Saket Courts, New Delhi (`Trial Court') in CS SCJ 213/2021, Rajeshwar Nath Kaul v. Jagbir Singh, allowing an application filed by the Respondent under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') and permitting the written statement of the Respondent to be taken on record.
1.1. The Petitioner is the plaintiff and the Respondent is the defendant before the Trial Court in the suit.
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that he is aggrieved by the laxity shown by the Respondent in conducting the matter so far before the Trial Court and he states that he apprehends that in view of the indulgence shown to the Respondent he will continue to further delay the trial proceedings.
2.1. He states, after some arguments, that Petitioner is seeking the limited relief that the Trial Court be requested to hear the matter and decide the same expeditiously and not grant any unnecessary adjournments to the Respondent.
3. This Court has heard the learned counsel and perused the record.
4. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the exercise of discretion of the Trial Court in permitting the written statement to be taken on record; although it is evident from the record that the Respondent has taken multiple adjournments before the Trial Court for completing the requirement of filing the written statement within the statutory period.
5. In the facts of this case, the Trial Court is requested to exercise its jurisdiction under Order 17 CPC and not grant any unnecessary adjournments to the Respondent.
6. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.
7. Pending application stands disposed of.
The court's discretion in permitting written statements and granting adjournments should be exercised judiciously, and unnecessary adjournments should be avoided under Order 17 CPC.
The need for the Trial Court to decide the application of the Petitioner on its own merits and the imposition of legal costs as a condition for the liberty granted.
The main legal point established is that the appropriate remedy for challenging orders passed by the Trial Court in a civil suit is to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Order 43 Rule (1)(r) ....
Timely resolution of procedural matters is essential for the expeditious conduct of trials.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Trial Court should decide an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before proceeding with the trial, as emphasized by the Supreme ....
The court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory, allowing for discretion in permitting late defenses under mitigating circumstances, without the ability to substitute the lower court's deci....
Courts must provide reasoned orders when deciding procedural applications to uphold fair trial rights and ensure proper judicial process.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that disputes should be resolved on merits rather than technicalities, and in deserving cases, delay in filing pleadings can be condoned subject....
Delay in filing the written statement can be condoned in deserving cases, subject to compensatory cost, and disputes should be resolved on merits rather than technicalities.
The interpretation of procedural rules regarding the filing of written statements and the discretion of the court to permit filing beyond the stipulated period based on sufficient cause.
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
