Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
Khurshid Hassan, son of Md. Islam – Appellant
Versus
Durga Raju, wife of late P.H.Raju – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite parties [O.P.No.1 who is plaintiff in the suit and the others who are said to be proforma Defendants/O.Ps.].
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the orders dated 02.02.2022 as well as 12.07.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No.19 of 2011 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for acceptance of the written statement has been rejected.
3. Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Title Suit No.19 of 2011 was instituted for decree of possession as the registered general power of attorney bearing Deed No.IV, 844 dated 30.07.2009 and cancellation of the registered Sale Deed No.7021 dated 11.11.2009, not binding upon the plaintiff and principal defendant no.4. The prayer is also made for setting aside the general power of attorney.
4. He submits that the suit was admitted on 23.6.2011 and summons were issued upon the defendants for their appearance. He submits
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 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....
The provisions for filing written statements are directory, allowing for late submissions if satisfactory reasons for delay are provided.
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.
The court held that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are directory, allowing for judicial discretion in extending the time for filing written statements.
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 court upheld that an acceptance of a late filed written statement is valid based on prior submissions unless substantial grounds for recall are shown.
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 of Order 8 Rule 1 regarding filing written statements are directory, not mandatory, ensuring fair opportunity for both parties in legal proceedings.
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.
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
