Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Degan Gope, son of Dasai Gope – Appellant
Versus
Rudan Gope, son of Late Babun Gope – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conclusion to dispose of the petition based on findings. (Para 1 , 7 , 15) |
| 2. petition discusses the suit for declaration of property rights. (Para 2 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. debarment from filing written statements should be carefully considered by the court. (Para 3) |
| 4. arguments concerning the entitlement and procedural rights of the petitioners. (Para 4 , 5 , 9) |
| 5. court grants petitioners permission to file written statement under conditions. (Para 6 , 12 , 14) |
| 6. 90-day period for filing written statement is directory. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 6.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the prayer is made for quashing of the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-VIII, Hazaribag in Original Suit (Title) No.77/2021 by which the learned Court has been pleased to reject the petition filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and debarred the petitioners from filing written statement.
3. I.A. No. 6242 of 2024 has been filed for
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 provisions for filing written statements are directory, allowing for late submissions if satisfactory reasons for delay are provided.
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....
Procedural law should advance substantial justice, and in case of conflict, the court should lean towards substantial justice.
The court upheld the necessity of adhering to procedural timelines in civil proceedings, emphasizing that applications under Order VII Rule 11 are independent of written statements.
The court held that procedural unfairness due to technical irregularities can justify allowing the filing of Written Statements after delays, emphasizing the importance of justice over procedural str....
Delay in filing a written statement can be condoned when within the overall condonable limits, prioritizing justice over 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
