Back
SIDDHARTH
Amit Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Pushpa Devi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts and procedural history. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding closure of written statement. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on procedural adherence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. interpretation of order 8, rule 1 c.p.c. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. conclusion allowing revision and directing further proceedings. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
2. This S.C.C. Revision is directed against the order dated 24.11.2017 passed by 16th Additional District Judge, Varanasi in S.C.C. Suit No. 18 of 2016 (Pushpa Devi & another Vs. Amit Kumar Singh) whereby the opportunity of defendant/revisionist to file written statement has been closed and by the orders dated 27.02.2018 and 31.10.2018, the applications for recall of the order dated 24.11.2017 have been rejected.
3. The brief facts of the case are that S.C.C. Suit No.18 of 2016 was filed by plaintiffs/respondents praying for a decree of arrears of rent and eviction against the defendant/revisionist on 20.07.2016. The defendant/revisionist appeared in the aforesaid suit
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 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 court reinforced that adherence to statutory timelines for filing written statements is crucial, and extensions must be justified with proper applications and reasons.
Point of law: In the event of any default in making any deposit, "the court may subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) strike off his defence
The main legal point established is that the provision under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory, and the court has the discretion to grant an extension for filing a written statement i....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the courts to permit defendants to file their written statements and the need to decide suits on merits rather than technicali....
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
