Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Chaitan Paul @ Chaitanya Paul – Appellant
Versus
Arun Paul, S/o Late Dulal Paul – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Notices were issued upon opposite party nos. 1 to 10. Learned counsel Mr. Ashish Kumar appears on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 to 3. Notice upon opposite party no.4 has been received by his wife, notice upon opposite party nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are deemed to be validly served, as pointed out by the office and notice upon opposite party no. 10 was hanged on the door and, as such, notice upon opposite party nos. 4 to 10 are deemed to be validly served. The matter was adjourned on 12.07.2024, 27.09.2024, 12.11.2024 and 17.12.2024 and in spite of that, nobody has appeared on behalf of them and in view of that, this petition is being heard on merit in absence of opposite party nos. 4 to 10.
2. Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 3.
3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein to quash the order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Seraikella in T.P.S./O.S. No.34 of 2016, whereby, the petitioner has been debarred from filing the written statement.
4. Learned counsel for the pet
The provisions for filing written statements are directory, allowing for late submissions if satisfactory reasons for delay are provided.
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.
The time limit for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 is directory, allowing courts discretion to extend deadlines based on case circumstances.
Procedural law should advance substantial justice, and in case of conflict, the court should lean towards substantial justice.
Liberal approach in construing sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the importance of deciding matters on merits rather than technical grounds.
The court ruled that delays in filing written statements can be excused under exceptional circumstances, such as judicial custody and pandemics, interpreting procedural rules as directory rather than....
Delay in filing a written statement can be condoned when within the overall condonable limits, prioritizing justice over technicalities.
The time of 90 days prescribed for filing written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC in an ordinary suit is directory and not mandatory. The court has the discretion to grant further time to th....
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
