Back
NAMIT KUMAR
Kanchan Rani – Appellant
Versus
Sadhna Aggarwal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Namit Kumar, J. (Oral)
Challenge in the present revision petition is for setting-aside the order dated 11.04.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala in RP No.111 of 2022, titled as "Sadhna Aggarwal v. Kanchan Rani and others" whereby the application filed by the respondent No.1/petitioner under Order 8, Rule 10 CPC, has been allowed and defence of the petitioners/defendants has been struck-off on account of non-filing of written statement despite availing several opportunities.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a petition under Section 13 of Rent Act for ejectment of the respondent from Shop No.37, Ganpati Complex, B.I. Bazar Road near Aggarwal Dharamshala, Ambala Cantt. on 17.05.2022 and thereafter on 04.08.2022, in view of the Resolution, the District Bar Association abstained from work and thereafter, several opportunities have been granted to file reply/written statement on behalf of the respondents and thereafter, on 17.01.2023, the learned Presiding Officer was on compensatory leave and the case was adjourned to 02.03.2023 and thereafter, on 02.03.2023, last opportunity was granted to file repl
The time for filing a written statement under Order 8, Rule 1 CPC is directory, allowing courts discretion to grant extensions under exceptional circumstances.
The time schedule for filing the written statement is generally to be followed as a rule and departure should be by way of exception, with penalties as a deterrent.
The court ruled that the provision under Order 8, Rule 1 CPC is directory, allowing extensions for filing written statements in justified circumstances, emphasizing fairness in the judicial process.
The provision of Order VIII Rule 1 is directory and not mandatory, and the court has the power to extend the time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided.
The striking off of a defendant's defence due to late filing of a written statement, despite court's extension, is unjustifiable, and such extensions are regarded as directory rather than mandatory, ....
The court reinforced that adherence to statutory timelines for filing written statements is crucial, and extensions must be justified with proper applications and reasons.
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....
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
