Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J
Binita Devi, daughter of Kalu Baraik and wife of Krishna Baraik – Appellant
Versus
Bina Mahli, wife of Shri Ganesh Mahli – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.3, who is State.
2. It has been pointed out that the opposite party No.2 is a proforma opposite party.
3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-XIX in Original Suit No.1500 of 2019.
4. Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the defendant in the suit being Original Suit No.152 of 2018/New Filing No.1500 of 2019 which was instituted by the plaintiff for a decree of specific performance of agreement dated 09.11.2010 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit land and defendant is directed to execute and get registered deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff after receiving of Rs.1,60,000/- only within time to be fixed by the Court and the prayer is made for direction to execute the sale deed. He submits that the said suit was instituted in 2019 and summon was received by the defendant on
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 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....
Point of Law : Provisions of section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in light of the provisions of Order XX Rule, 12A of the CPC, and it was held that the provisions of Order XX, Rule 12A mand....
Procedural rules must serve justice, allowing document submissions and amendments even with delays, provided they are relevant to the case.
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....
![C.M. Divakaran [Died] S/o Madhavan vs K.S. Balan S/o Sreedharan - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2716](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Kerala_1.png)
The court held that specific performance is a discretionary relief and denied it due to the plaintiff's delay and lack of demonstrated readiness to perform the contract, resulting in inequity to the ....
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
