Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Extension beyond 90 days should be exceptional: Last Opportunity for Written Statement Filing: P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar, has granted a final opportunity to the petitioners in CR No.7117 of 2023, Gurvail Singh and another vs Gurwinder Singh and others, to file their written statement. This ruling comes as a relief to the petitioners whose defense was previously struck off due to the non-filing of a written statement within the prescribed 90-day period.

The Court's decision, delivered on November 28, 2023, has been pivotal in interpreting the procedural mandates of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), specifically Order 8, Rule 1. Justice Kumar, in his observation, emphasized the balance between procedural law and the dispensation of justice, stating, “The provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 of CPC, though directory, should ordinarily be adhered to.” This highlights the Court’s stance on maintaining the integrity of legal procedures while ensuring fairness.

The judgment has been a topic of much discussion among legal circles for its nuanced approach towards procedural defaults. The Court noted, “Extension beyond 90 days should be exceptional and for reasons recorded in writing.” This statement underlines the need for strict adherence to timelines in legal proceedings, while also acknowledging the possibility of exceptions in extraordinary circumstances.

The petitioners were represented by Mr. Kanwar Pahul Singh, Advocate, who argued that the delay in filing the written statement was neither intentional nor deliberate. Acknowledging this, the Court has allowed the petitioners a final chance to submit their statement, subject to a cost penalty, thereby preventing what could have been a significant procedural injustice.

This ruling is seen as a reinforcement of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various precedents, where the procedural laws are considered directory but necessitate compliance to ensure swift and efficient judicial processes.

Date of Decision: 28th November 2023

GURVAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER VS GURWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

Latest Legal News