Back
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Amna Khatoon – Appellant
Versus
Bibi Madina – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Present writ petition has been preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner for quashing the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by learned Sub-Judge – V, Giridih in Partition Suit No. 66 of 2013 whereby and whereunder, the learned trial court has accepted the written statement filed by the defendant no. 6 rejecting the petition of the plaintiff/petitioner dated 12.08.2022.
Brief background of the case:
2. The plaintiff/petitioner has instituted partition suit No. 66 of 2013 wherein after service of summons defendant nos. 3, 4 and 5 appeared and filed their written statement but defendant no. 2 to 6 did not appear, inspite of publication of summons in daily newspaper “Prabhat Khabar”. Substituted service through paper publication dated 03.03.2020 was deemed sufficient against the defendant no. 6 but he failed to file his written statement within statutory period of thirty days from the date of service of summons.
3. It is alleged that after lapse of two years defendant no. 6 filed his written statement on 20.01.2022 without taking leave of the court. The plaintiff/petitioner filed an application dated 06.06.2022 stating therein that the written statement filed by the defendant no. 6 i
The judgment clarifies the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 CPC concerning the acceptance of belated written statements, emphasizing that procedural timelines are directory, not mandato....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time limit for filing written statements is not mandatory in non-commercial suits and the court has the discretion to extend the time, as ....
The court emphasized the directory nature of procedural laws and the need for exceptional circumstances to depart from the time schedule for filing written statements, considering the expeditious tri....
The court has discretionary power to condone the delay in filing the written statement, subject to a stricter yardstick for non-commercial suits, and the defendant should be given an opportunity to e....
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 held that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC are directory, allowing written statements to be filed beyond prescribed delays in exceptional circumstances, particularly to serve the int....
The court reinforced that adherence to statutory timelines for filing written statements is crucial, and extensions must be justified with proper applications and reasons.
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
