WASIM SADIQ NARGAL
Rajinder Singh Manhas – Appellant
Versus
Anil Gaind – Respondent
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
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.