Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
Dharam Raj – Appellant
Versus
Jai Kishan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal of written statement application (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. limitation extended by supreme court order (Para 3) |
| 3. procedural requirements for written statement filing (Para 4) |
| 4. conditions for participating after strike-off defense (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. final disposition of the petition (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)
C.R.P. 79/2022 & CM APPL.25680/2022 (stay), CM APPL.25681/2022 (for condonation of delay of 720 days)
1. Present revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 17.02.2020, whereby, an application of the petitioner for taking the written statement on record was dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
2. Learned Trial Court also passed a direction that the payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- is a pre-requisite for his further participation in the case. The impugned order itself is self-explanatory and reveals that in the suit bearing CS No.27/2017 instituted in the year 2017, the defendant/petitioner admittedly was served in April 2017 and no written statement was filed within the prescribed period of 90 days. It is also an admitted case that on account of non-filing of the written statement, the defence of the defendant/peti
The court emphasized the importance of considering the amnesty period granted by the Supreme Court for filing various pleadings and held that there was no valid reason to refuse to take the written s....
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 may condone delay in filing documents if there are genuine reasons, such as the petitioner's young age, difficulties in understanding legal procedures, and the complex nature of the issues ....
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 holds that a defendant's failure to file a written statement within the prescribed period due to negligence or lethargy justifies the striking off of their defence, and such orders will not....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the courts to permit defendants to file their written statements and the need to decide suits on merits rather than technicali....
The court reinforced that adherence to statutory timelines for filing written statements is crucial, and extensions must be justified with proper applications and reasons.
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
