Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

High Court Grants Final Opportunity for Filing Written Statement, Emphasizes Procedural Compliance

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has granted a final opportunity to the petitioners in the case of Kanchan Rani and Another vs. Sadhna Aggarwal and Another to file their written statement. This decision comes after the petitioners' defense was previously struck off by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala, due to non-filing within the stipulated time frame.

Justice Namit Kumar, presiding over the case, highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural timelines while accommodating exceptional circumstances. The judge stated, "Though Order 8, Rule 1 of the CPC is a part of procedural Law and hence directory, keeping in view the need for expeditious trial of civil cases, the time schedule contained in the provision is to be followed as a rule and departure therefrom would be by way of exception."

The case, marked under CR No.5001 of 2023, revolved around a rent dispute where the petitioners failed to file a written statement in response to an eviction petition. Despite several opportunities granted by the court, the petitioners missed the deadlines, leading to the striking off of their defense.

In the ruling, the High Court considered various precedents, including the Supreme Court's interpretation of Order 8, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The apex court's judgments have consistently emphasized that while procedural laws are generally directory, the courts must ensure that these procedures do not impede justice delivery.

The petitioners' counsel argued that the non-filing was unintentional, citing factors like the District Bar Association's resolution leading to abstention from work and the presiding officer's absence on a scheduled hearing date as reasons for the delay.

Accepting the petitioners' plea, Justice Kumar stated, "Comprehensive amendments were made in CPC in the year 2002 in Order 8, Rule 1 CPC... The Court should not, therefore, be too harsh to disallow filing of written statement."

Date of Decision: 16.12.2023

Kanchan Rani and another VS Sadhna Aggarwal and another

 

Similar News