UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

 

Latest Legal News