Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN CHANDER NEGI
Pawan – Appellant
Versus
Indu Bansal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.3.2024, whereby the right of the present petitioner to file reply had been struck off.
2. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended with the petition.
3. The controversy in the case at hand needs to be understood in the context of relevant provisions of the civil procedure code, namely ORDER VIII Rule 1, ORDER XVII Rule 1 whereby written statement is required to be filed within ninety days from the date of service of summons and no more than three adjournment shall be granted to a party during hearing of the suit that to on showing sufficient cause respectively. The same are being reproduced herein below for a ready reference.
ORDER VIII Rule 1 reads as follows;
1. Written statement.— The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:
Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but
The right to file a written statement can be struck off if a party fails to do so despite multiple opportunities, emphasizing the importance of timely justice.
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....
Procedural law should advance substantial justice, and in case of conflict, the court should lean towards substantial justice.
Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement require due diligence and are not a matter of right; the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting grave errors.
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.
Strict adherence to procedural deadlines for filing written statements is essential; ignorance of law does not excuse late filings.
The time for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC can be extended only in exceptional circumstances, underscoring the importance of adhering to procedural timelines.
Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting gross errors; amendments post-trial are impermissible unless necessary to resolve issues, safeguarding respondent rights.
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....
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
