CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court

Unamended Order VIII Rule 1 CPC Directory, Not Mandatory in Non-Commercial Suits: P&H High Court Grants Opportunity to File Written Statement Subject to Costs

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed a revision petition challenging the striking off of a defense due to the non-filing of a written statement in a non-commercial suit, emphasizing the discretionary nature of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC in such cases. The decision, pronounced by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin, underscores the distinction between procedural requirements in commercial and non-commercial disputes.

In the case titled Harshanjit Singh (Since Deceased) Through His LRS vs. Satpal, the High Court delved into the applicability of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, postulating its directory rather than mandatory nature in non-commercial suits. This comes in light of the petitioners' plea to file their written statement after it was struck off by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur.

 

The petitioners, represented by Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate, sought permission to file a written statement, which they had failed to do within the 90-day period prescribed, leading to their defense being struck off. The respondent, represented by Mr. Rahul Arora, Advocate, opposed the plea, arguing that the petitioners had already been provided sufficient opportunities.

 

Justice Alka Sarin referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Desh Raj vs. Balkishan [(2020) RCR (Civil) 807], which distinguished the filing timelines for written statements in commercial and non-commercial disputes. The Court observed that "Unamended Order VIII Rule I, CPC continues to be directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of Courts to condone certain delays."

Consequently, the High Court permitted the petitioners one more opportunity to file their written statement by 28.03.2024, conditional upon the payment of Rs.30,000/- as costs to the respondent. This payment was set as a precondition for the filing of the written statement.

The petition was disposed of with the direction for filing the written statement and the payment of costs. All pending applications related to this case were also disposed of.

Date of Decision: 22.03.2024

Harshanjit Singh (Since Deceased) Through His LRS vs. Satpal

Latest Legal News