Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
PRANAY VERMA
Anirudh Through Mother And Natural Guardian Geetanjali – Appellant
Versus
Gopaldas Kukreja – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trial court's granting of last opportunity (Para 1) |
| 2. trial court's observations on defendants' delays (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. legal framework for extending filing time (Para 4) |
| 4. discretionary nature of trial court's order (Para 5) |
| 5. affirmation of trial court's order (Para 6) |
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the trial Court, whereby last opportunity has been granted to the defendants for filing their written statement. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that such opportunity ought not to have been granted and instead the right of the defendants to file their written statement ought to have been closed.
2. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is observed that the trial Court has itself observed that several opportunities have been granted to the defendants to file their written statement, but they have not done so. It has consequently, by way of last opportunity, directed the defendants to file their written statement and has further observed that in case the same is not done Signature Not Verified
Trial Courts have discretion to grant last opportunities for filing written statements, emphasizing that extensions should not be routine but can be justified based on case circumstances.
Strict adherence to procedural deadlines for filing written statements is essential; ignorance of law does not excuse late filings.
The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition due to the petitioner's failure to file written statements within the stipulated time, emphasizing adherence to procedural timelines.
The provisions for filing written statements are directory, allowing for late submissions if satisfactory reasons for delay are provided.
The right to file a written statement is forfeited if not submitted within the statutory period, and courts lack discretion to extend this period.
The court ruled that a party's right to file a written statement should not be denied due to delay, provided costs are imposed, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial.
Procedural law should advance substantial justice, and in case of conflict, the court should lean towards substantial justice.
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....
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
