Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Bhonmai Borah W/o. Lt. Hemanta Borah – Appellant
Versus
Maina Das Borah – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. K. R. Patgiri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. S. G. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging an order dated 23.08.2022 passed in Petition No.240/2022 arising out of Title Suit No.18/2020 by the Court of the learned Munsiff No.2, North Lakhimpur whereby the application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) for vacating the ex-parte order was rejected.
3. Mr. K. R. Patgiri, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide order dated 08.10.2021, the suit was proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner who was the defendant No.1. He submitted that the learned Trial Court did not take into consideration that the petitioner was an old aged lady and had to undergone treatment for her knee and head injury and medical certificates were also enclosed therewith. Mr. K. R. Patgiri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that a perusal of Order IX Rule 7 of the Code would show that what cause was required to be shown was a good cause and not a sufficient
The right to file a written statement is a substantive right, with procedural rules serving to support it; good cause must be established for vacating an ex-parte order under the Code.
The right to file a written statement is essential and must be prioritized, though negligence can affect the outcome of such permissions.
Provisions requiring timely submission of written statements under civil procedure are directory; however, extensions should only be granted for compelling reasons supported by evidence to prevent ju....
The court clarified that the time frame for filing written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 is directory, allowing for extensions in exceptional circumstances, emphasizing parties' responsibility i....
A decree passed ex-parte due to the failure to file a written statement within the prescribed time is not covered under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code, and therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to s....
In the case which does not fall within four corners of Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, Court has no jurisdiction to set aside ex-parte decree.
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 sufficiency of the cause for delay is the primary criterion for condoning delay under the Limitation Act, not merely the length of the delay.
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
