Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J
MAGANBAI WIFE OF VISHRAM – Appellant
Versus
CHANCHALRANI DAUGHTER OF TILAK WIFE OF BHIHARI LAL – Respondent
CW / 2066 / 2025
Order :
1. This Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant No. 1 (for short ‘the defendant No. 1) against the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by District Judge, Dausa in civil Suit No. 25/2023, whereby the right of defendant No. 1 to file written statement has been closed.
2. Learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 submits that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 18.01.2023 and permanent injunction against the defendant No. 1 and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in which defendant No. 1’s opportunity to file written statement has been closed. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 submits that due to unavoidable circumstances, defendants could not file the written statement. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the trial Court be set aside and one more opportunity be granted to the defendant No. 1 to file the written statement.
3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 and perused the impugned order.
4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest justice, I deem it fit to allow the petition filed by the defendant No. 1 subject to payment of cost.
5. Accordingly, petition filed by the defendant No. 1 is allowed.
6. The order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the trial Court is set aside. The trial Court is directed grant an opportunity to the defendant No. 1 for filing of the written statement subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff on or before next date of hearing, failing which no opportunity be granted to defendant No. 1 for filing the written statement.
7. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
The court emphasized the importance of justice by allowing the defendant one more opportunity to file a written statement, subject to cost payment.
The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition due to the petitioner's failure to file written statements within the stipulated time, emphasizing adherence to procedural timelines.
The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, affirming that the petitioner failed to justify the delay in filing a written statement, thus upholding the Trial Court's decision.
The time of 90 days prescribed for filing written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC in an ordinary suit is directory and not mandatory. The court has the discretion to grant further time to th....
The trial court should not close the opportunity of filing the written statement while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
The main legal point established is that the right to file a written statement in a civil suit may extend beyond the prescribed period, as supported by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and relevant ....
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.
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
