Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Lalita Devi W/o Birju Pasi – Appellant
Versus
Kajal Ram S/o Late Tipan Hazra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed under article 227 to set aside orders (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding debarment from filing written statement (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. discussion on procedural adherence and evidence presentation (Para 5) |
| 4. court dismisses the c.m.p. as no illegality found (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the orders dated 08.07.2022 and 07.12.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-X, Giridih in Original Suit No.95 of 2019 whereby the petitioner has been debarred to file the written statement and recall of the order dated 08.07.2022 respectively has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Original Suit No.95 of 2019 instituted in the concerned Court for declaration of possession of title and recovery of possession against petitioners/defendants. The petitioners/defendants have appeared before the Court and started participating in the proceeding and by order dated 08.07.2022 they have been debarred to f
The court upheld the decision to deny the filing of a written statement due to failure to give valid reasons for delay, reiterating that extensions must be granted only in exceptional cases.
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....
The provisions for filing written statements are directory, allowing for late submissions if satisfactory reasons for delay are provided.
Strict adherence to procedural deadlines for filing written statements is essential; ignorance of law does not excuse late filings.
The time for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC can be extended only in exceptional circumstances, underscoring the importance of adhering to procedural timelines.
The court retains discretion to accept late written statements in exceptional cases, but defendants must provide valid reasons for delays, as emphasized in Article 227 of the Constitution and Order V....
The time limit for filing a written statement can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases, and the court's discretion to extend the time should not be routinely exercised.
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.
Delay in filing the written statement can be condoned in deserving cases, subject to compensatory cost, and disputes should be resolved on merits rather than technicalities.
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
