Second 482 Petition Maintainable On Changed Circumstances: Allahabad HC Quashes Proceedings Against Aptech VP In Jal Nigam Recruitment Case Police Have No Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Civil Disputes Between Parties, Must Adhere To Statutory Limits: Andhra Pradesh High Court Consent Decree Based On Compromise Signed By Constituted Attorney And Counsel Is Binding Even After 30 Years: Bombay High Court Changing Service Conditions Mid-Bond For Senior Residents Doctors Is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Quashes Retroactive Application Of New SOP Succession Certificate Under Indian Succession Act Cannot Determine Entitlement To Family Pension And Retiral Benefits: Allahabad High Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected For Failure To Value Reliefs Separately And Pay Ad-Valorem Court Fees: Delhi High Court NDPS Act | Non-Compliance With Mandatory Provisions Of Sections 42, 50 And 57 Vitiates Search And Seizure, Warrants Acquittal: Gujarat High Court FIR Cannot Be Quashed Merely On Complainant’s Consent; Court Must Independently Scrutinize If Ingredients Of Offence Are Made Out: Calcutta High Court Section 25 Hindu Marriage Act | Permanent Alimony Must Be Based On Husband’s Financial Capacity And Wife’s Reasonable Comfort: Jharkhand High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Direct Registration Of FIR Or Constitute SIT When Statutory Remedies Under CrPC Are Available: Delhi High Court Child Cannot Be Used As A Pawn To Prove Adultery Between Parents: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea To Examine Minor As Witness Section 156(3) CrPC | Magistrate Cannot Give Criminal Colour To Administrative Disputes By Directing FIR Registration Without Compliance With Priyanka Srivastava: High Court Contempt Of Court Act | Burden To Prove 'Willful Disobedience' Lies Upon Complainant; Merely Alleging Non-Compliance Is Insufficient: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Dismiss Matrimonial Petition Merely For Lack Of 'Elaborate' Evidence In Ex-Parte Proceedings: Kerala High Court Election Petition Under Section 100 RP Act Must Be Supported By Mandatory Affidavit In Form 94A For Corrupt Practice Allegations: Madras High Court Water Act | Supreme Court Directive Overrides Previous Quashing Orders; Magistrate Can Proceed Against Municipal Officials For Unchecked Sewage Discharge: Karnataka High Court A&C Act | Arbitrator’s Decision On Jurisdiction Treated As A Preliminary Issue Amounts To An 'Interim Award' Amenable To Challenge Under Section 34: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act | No Requirement To Hear Accused At Pre-Cognizance Stage Under Section 223 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 94 BNSS | Financial Institutions Entitled To Retain Custody Of Pledged Gold Provided Undertaking Is Filed Before Trial Court: Telangana High Court Family Courts Act | Section 14 Overrides Section 92 Indian Evidence Act To Admit Oral Evidence For Proving Real Source Of Funds: Kerala 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