Back
NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Shantinagar (Shela) Co-Operative Housing Society Limited – Appellant
Versus
Bileshwar Corporation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju with learned Advocate Mr. Dhanesh R. Patel for the petitioner and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhaval Dave with learned Advocate Mr. Jigar P. Raval for the respondent (caveator).
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate Mr. Jigar P. Raval waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent.
3. With consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing.
4. By way of this petition the petitioner has challenged an order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sanand, under Exh. 60 in Special Civil Suit No. 407 of 2017, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner-defendant to reopen his right to file a written statement and reply to the application for interim injunction has been rejected.
5. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition, as far as they are relevant for the present purpose are narrated herein below :
5.1 It appears that on 21.05.2013, the respondent M/s Bileshwar Corporation had filed Special Civil Suit No. 272 of 2013 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) for specific performance whi
The court ruled that the limitation for filing a written statement is strict and can only be extended in exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case.
The main legal point established is that while the time schedule for filing a written statement should generally be honored, exceptional situations may warrant an extension to ensure a fair trial and....
The court affirmed that defendants lose the right to file a written statement if not submitted within the prescribed 120 days, highlighting the necessity of adhering to procedural timelines in commer....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time for filing a written statement should be reckoned from the date of the order disposing of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of ....
The court holds that delays in filing additional written statements can be condoned under Rule 9 of Order VIII provided there is sufficient cause and no prejudice is caused to the opposing party.
The court ruled that a party's right to file a written statement should not be denied due to delay, provided costs are imposed, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the defendant to file the written statement within the prescribed period, the consequences of failing to do so, and the applica....
The inviolability of the hard stop period of 120 days for filing the written statement in non-commercial suits as prescribed in Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the DHC Rules.
Point of Law : No embargo upon the defendants to file written statement before adjudication of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application.
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
