IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J
Shila Devi, D/o Late Ramchandra Tanti – Appellant
Versus
Gautam Gupta, S/o Late Natho Gupta – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 13.07.2023 passed in O.S. No.22 of 2020 by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sahibganj whereby the learned Court has been pleased to accept the written statement and also admitted the counter claim of the defendant 2nd Party No.5 and 6.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Original Title Suit No.22 of 2020 was instituted for declaring the sale deed No.127 of 2019 dated 26.07.2019 as void ab initio and not binding against the plaintiff. He submits in the said suit the notice was issued upon the defendants and the defendants herein have not filed the written statement within time. With a delay of 9 days along with a limitation petition, the written statement was filed and the learned Court has been pleased to allow the same and the written statement has been taken on record. He submits in view of Order 8 Rule 1, there is bar of taking written statement after 90 days. On this ground, he submits that the order may kind
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 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....
Delay in filing a written statement can be condoned when within the overall condonable limits, prioritizing justice over technicalities.
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.
Procedural law should advance substantial justice, and in case of conflict, the court should lean towards substantial justice.
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 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 court emphasized the need for granting procedural justice by allowing petitioners to seek condonation of delay in filing their written statement despite initial rejection.
The interpretation of procedural rules regarding the filing of written statements and the discretion of the court to permit filing beyond the stipulated period based on sufficient cause.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.