Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
ABDUL GAFFAR TANTRAY – Appellant
Versus
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (REVENUE DEPARTMENT) – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner through the medium of present petition has challenged order dated 10.05.2024 passed by learned Munsiff Budgam, whereby the learned trial court has refused to take on record the written statement filed by the petitioner.
2. Issue notice to the respondents No.5 to 8 in the first instance. Mr.Malik Mudasir Yousuf, Advocate appearing vice Mr. Shuja-ul-Haq, Advocate, who is on caveat, has waived notice on behalf of respondents No.5 to 8.
3. Caveat stands discharged.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. It appears that the private respondents have filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioners/defendants before the Court of learned Munsiff Budgam. The said suit was filed on 24.05.2022. It seems that on 13.09.2022, the petitioner, who happens to be defendant No.6 in the suit, appeared through his counsel before the trial court and sought time to file written statement. However, no written statement was filed by him despite availing a number of opportunities in this regard. In fact the petitioner/defendant No.6 alongwith other defendants had caused appearance before the trial court on 25.06.2022. However, defend
The right to file a written statement is forfeited if not submitted within the statutory period, and courts lack discretion to extend this period.
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.
Parties should be allowed to file written statements to ensure cases are adjudicated on merits, not mere technicalities, provided justifiable reasons for delays are shown.
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 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 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 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....
The non-filing of the written statement within the stipulated time could not be a ground for striking off the defence, considering the judgments exempting the limitation for filing pleadings.
The provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. are directory, allowing courts discretion to extend time for filing written statements.
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
