Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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