Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

J&K High Court Affirms Trial Court’s Acceptance of Late Written Statements: ‘Covid-19 Exclusion Period Applies’ and ‘Waiver of Right Valid’

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, in a significant ruling, has upheld the trial court’s decision to accept late written statements filed by the defendants in the case of Chaman Lal vs. Mohd Sharief and Sudesh Kumar. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, emphasizes the application of the Covid-19 exclusion period as directed by the Supreme Court and acknowledges the waiver of procedural rights by the plaintiff’s counsel.

The petitioner, Chaman Lal, filed a suit seeking declarations that certain sale deeds and an order by the Tehsildar were null and void, alongside a permanent injunction against the defendants. The suit was presented on 18.09.2021, and the respondents were served summons. Both defendants failed to file written statements within the mandatory 120 days, prompting the trial court to grant extensions, which were later challenged by the petitioner.

Credibility of Covid-19 Exclusion Period: The court underscored the Supreme Court’s directives in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition © No. 3/2020, which mandated the exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 from all judicial proceedings. This directive was pivotal in assessing Defendant No.1’s written statement, filed on 28.05.2022, as timely within the extended limitation period.

Waiver of Right by Plaintiff’s Counsel: For Defendant No.2’s written statement, filed beyond the 120-day limit, the court noted the trial court’s record of the plaintiff’s counsel conceding no objection to the late filing. The High Court validated this concession as a waiver of the statutory right under Order 8, Rule 1 of CPC, emphasizing that such rights can be waived by conduct.

Justice Dhar analyzed the procedural implications of the Covid-19 directives and the strategic concessions by the plaintiff’s counsel. The exclusion of the pandemic period ensured justice was served under exceptional global circumstances. The plaintiff’s waiver was deemed a deliberate and binding decision, allowing the trial court to accept the late filing without further dispute.

Justice Dhar remarked, “In view of the Supreme Court’s directions, the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation, thus validating the acceptance of Defendant No.1’s written statement filed on 28.05.2022.” Regarding the waiver by the plaintiff’s counsel, he stated, “A statutory right can be waived by conduct, and the concession made by the plaintiff’s counsel on 31.10.2022 was a conscious decision, thereby binding the plaintiff.”

The High Court’s decision to dismiss the petition highlights a flexible yet principled approach to procedural compliance during the Covid-19 pandemic. By upholding the trial court’s orders, the judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s adaptability in ensuring procedural justice. This ruling not only clarifies the application of limitation periods during the pandemic but also emphasizes the binding nature of strategic legal concessions, setting a significant precedent for future procedural disputes.

Date of Decision: 3rd May 2024

Chaman Lal vs. Mohd Sharief and Sudesh Kumar

Similar News