Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Mansi Jain – Appellant
Versus
Abhinav Jain – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay in filings due to pandemic considerations. (Para 1 , 1 , 5 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. argument against acceptance of delayed written statement. (Para 2 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. scope of court's jurisdiction under article 227. (Para 3 , 10 , 19) |
| 4. non-payment of costs as a grounds for refusal. (Para 4 , 11 , 17) |
| 5. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 22 , 23) |
1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the following order dated 03rd March, 2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ"), in CSDJ No. 6668/2018:
CSDJ No. 6668/18
Mansi Jain vs. Abhinav Jain
03.03.2022
Present: Ms. Manju Jain, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Defendant in person.
An application u/o IX Rule 7 R/w Section 114 and 151 CPC has been moved by defendant for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 30.11.2021 and review of the order passed by the court on aforesaid date.
Defendant no.1 Sh. Abhinav Jain, also happens to be an Advocate, states that due to pandemic conditions he could not pay the cost, though, the WS was filed on record. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff states that the defendant is taking all steps for delaying the matter.
The
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....
Unconscionable laches can bar relief in petitions under Article 227; courts will not interfere unless there are grave abuses or derelictions.
The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of the 120-day limitation for filing a written statement and the lack of discretion for condonation of delay, as supported by relevant legal provisions an....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scope of Article 227 does not warrant interference with the impugned order, and that the Original Side Rules do not apply to the case.
Courts must provide reasoned orders when deciding procedural applications to uphold fair trial rights and ensure proper judicial process.
The court emphasized the need for granting procedural justice by allowing petitioners to seek condonation of delay in filing their written statement despite initial rejection.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the stipulated period for filing written statements can be affected by external factors such as the Covid-19 pandemic, and a statutory right c....
Civil Suit - Jurisdiction of Court - Only wrong decision may not be a ground for exercise of jurisdiction under this article unless wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty, flagrant abuse of ....
Closure of the right to file a written statement by the trial court can be revisited if the parties agree, with costs imposed ensuring fairness in the proceedings.
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
