IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, J.
Rajinder Singh Manhas - Petitioner
Versus
Anil Gaind & Anr. - Respondents
CM(M) No. 47 of 2023
Decided On : 25-04-2023
DELAY CONDONATION - SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - S.O. 1123 (E) of 2020 - Order-VIII Rule-1 CPC - Commercial Courts Act - The court discussed the provisions of S.O. 1123 (E) of 2020 and Order-VIII Rule-1 CPC, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the 120-day limitation for filing a written statement. The court cited relevant judgments to support the mandatory nature of the timeline and lack of discretion for condonation of delay. The court upheld the Trial Court's decision to dismiss the application for condonation of delay and not allow the written statement to be taken on record.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a suit against the petitioner for specific performance of an agreement. The petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing the written statement due to family health issues. The Trial Court dismissed the application, leading to the petitioner filing a petition under Article-227 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the 120-day limitation for filing a written statement and the lack of discretion for condonation of delay. The Court dismissed the petition, stating that the Trial Court's order did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's request for condonation of delay in filing the written statement, the mandatory nature of the 120-day limitation, and the Court's power under Article-227 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the mandatory nature of the 120-day limitation for filing a written statement, as emphasized in S.O. 1123 (E) of 2020 and relevant judgments. The Court also highlighted the limited scope of its power under Article-227 to interfere with the Trial Court's decision.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the Trial Court's decision to dismiss the application for condonation of delay and not allow the written statement to be taken on record. The petition was dismissed for lacking merit.
JUDGMENT :
1. Petitioner through the medium of present petition is calling in question the order dated 22nd February, 2023 passed by the Court of learned 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu by invoking the powers of this Court under Article-227 of the Constitution of India by virtue of which, the application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement has been dismissed with a further prayer to direct the aforesaid Court to take on record the written statement of the petitioner and adjudicate the matter on merits.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Respondents have filed a suit against the petitioner whereby they have sought specific performance of the agreement/memorandum of understanding dated 23.10.2017 duly entered and executed between the petitioner and respondents herein. An application came to be preferred during the pendency of the aforesaid suit before the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu by the applicant/petitioner herein, who has sought condonation of delay in filing the written statement in the aforesaid suit on the ground that the petitioner herein has been served by the aforesaid Court in the month of January, 2022 and however, in the month of January, 2022, the grandmother of the applicant/petitioner herein died and thereafter, the mother of the applicant, who was an old aged lady and was suffering from various ailments became sick and accordingly, the applicant, who is the only son, had to remain with his mother and had to go for her treatment out of station.
3. It has also been averred in the application filed by the petitioner that the father of the petitioner had already expired and mother of the petitioner was totally dependent upon him and due to her bad health, the petitioner could not attend the Court proceedings and accordingly, could not reach to his counsel for preparation of the written statement before the Court below. Thus, the petitioner while filing the aforesaid application has submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and accordingly, prayed before the Trial Court that a lenient view be taken in favour of the applicant and the written statement be taken on record.
4. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that on the presentation of the said application, notice was issued to the non-applicants/respondents herein for filing objections, who appeared through their counsel and filed objections to aforesaid application. The respondents took objection to the maintainability of the aforesaid application seeking condonation of delay for filing the written statement as according to the respondents herein, there is no provision for condoning the delay and accordingly, sought dismissal of the application. Since the applicant has filed the written statement after the expiry of period of limitation on 02.06.2022 and the applicant had failed to annex any document in order to substantiate the death of the grandmother and illness of the mother and accordingly, it was prayed that the aforesaid act of the applicant in filing the aforesaid application was with a view to delay the proceedings and accordingly, sought dismissal of the said application.
5. The specific objection was taken by the defendants that the applicant has failed to annex any document to substantiate the cause set out in the application for filing the written statement beyond the period of 120 days and, thus, the delay cannot be condoned. The Court below after having considered the rival submissions of both the sides and perusing the record and legal provisions touching the matter in controversy, dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay being devoid of merits by holding that there being statutory compulsion to file written statement within 120 days and applicant/defendant having failed to do so, as such, the application for condonation of delay which was fo
Desh Raj v. Balkishan (D) through proposed LR Ms. Rohini
Salem Advocate Bar Association, T. N. v. Union of India
SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. KS Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai
Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee
Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scope of Article 227 does not warrant interference with the impugned order, and that the Original Side Rules do not apply to the case.
Civil Suit - Jurisdiction of Court - Only wrong decision may not be a ground for exercise of jurisdiction under this article unless wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty, flagrant abuse of ....
Unconscionable laches can bar relief in petitions under Article 227; courts will not interfere unless there are grave abuses or derelictions.
The striking off of a defendant's defence due to late filing of a written statement, despite court's extension, is unjustifiable, and such extensions are regarded as directory rather than mandatory, ....
The law of limitation does not extend for defendants who have actively participated in litigation and have previously availed concessions; negligence in filing a written statement bars admission.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to time limits for filing written statements in commercial suits as mandated by the Commercial Court Act and the amendments to....
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 the requirement for the defendant to file the written statement within the prescribed period, the consequences of failing to do so, and the applica....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.