Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAVINDER DUDEJA
Rajeev Shukla – Appellant
Versus
Gopal Krishna Shukla – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the orders dated 21.07.2022 and 01.07.2023 in CS 1831/2019 titled Gopal Krishna Shukla Vs. Rajeev Shukla passed by the learned trial court.
2. Petitioner is the son of the respondent and is defendant in the Suit for Permanent & Mandatory Injunction and Recovery of Damages filed by the respondent against him.
3. Summons for Settlement of Issues were sent to the petitioner on04.12.2019, returnable for 29.01.2020.
4. As per list of dates furnished by the petitioner, summons were received on 14.12.2019. Petitioner appeared before the court on 29.01.2019 and sought time to file written statement.
5. Written Statement along with an application for condonation of delay was filed before the court digitally on 22.09.2020. In November 2021, he filed amended written statement.
6. Vide order dated 21.07.2022, trial court dismissed the application for condonation of delay.
7. Respondent filed an application under Section 151 CPC, seeking striking off the defence. The said application was allowed vide order dated 01.07.2023 and the written statement along with amended written statement were taken of t
The court emphasized that procedural errors should not override substantive justice, prioritizing the substance of applications over technicalities.
The court emphasized a liberal approach in condoning delays in filing written statements to ensure justice is served, rather than adhering strictly to technicalities.
Question of delay could not be re-agitated by means of the application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.
Civil Suit - Collaboration Agreement - Absence of any cogent explanation forthcoming for inaction of petitioner/defendant, till 20th August 2020, Trial Court rightly dismissed the application under O....
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 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 ....
A delayed written statement may be accepted if condoned by the court; however, errors in earlier decisions cannot be challenged without timely objection.
Point of Law : Delay in filing Written statement - Commercial Court dealing with a commercial suit had no discretion to condone delay and could not allow the written statement to be taken on record b....
Condonation of delay is a matter of discretion, and the words 'sufficient cause' in the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice.
Timeliness in filing written statements is crucial; any delay beyond prescribed limits without an accompanying application for condonation is impermissible.
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
