Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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