TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Order 8 Rule 1 allows judges to admit written statements filed after 90 days after assessing intent and consequences</h1> <h3>SAMBHAJI Versus GANGABAI</h3> The SC set aside the High Court's affirmation of the trial court's refusal to accept a written statement filed after 90 days, holding that while the ... Interpretation of statutes - Procedural law - Civil suit - Limitation for filing written statement - Rules of procedure - Objects and intention - Whether the court has any power or jurisdiction to extend the period beyond 90 days - challenged before the High Court which noted that though the view of the trial court that it had no power to accept the written statement filed after 90 days was not correct in the circumstances of the case no case for interference was made out - HELD THAT:- It has been common practice for the parties to take long adjournments for filing written statements. The legislature with a view to curb this practice and to avoid unnecessary delay and adjournments, has provided for the maximum period within which the written statement is required to be filed. The mandatory or directory nature of Order 8 Rule 1 shall have to be determined by having regard to the object sought to be achieved by the amendment. It is, thus, necessary to find out the intention of the legislature. The consequences which may follow and whether the same were intended by the legislature have also to be kept in view. In the instant case the trial court proceeded on the erroneous premises that there was no scope to accept the written statement after 90 days. The High Court by the impugned order held that though it had power, no case was made out to accept the prayer. We have considered the grounds indicated by the appellants seeking acceptance of the written statement filed belatedly. They cannot be considered to be trivial or without substance. In the case of this nature where close relatives are litigants a liberal approach is called for. In the circumstances we set aside the impugned order of the High Court affirming the order passed by the trial court refusing acceptance of the written statement. The matter is not very complex. We request the trial court to complete trial of the suit within the period of six months. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs. Issues:Challenge to judgment dismissing writ petition questioning correctness of order rejecting application to set aside non-filing of written statement and not allowing defendants to file written statement beyond 90 days.Analysis:The appeal challenged a judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellants, who were defendants in a suit. The trial court rejected their application to set aside the order directing no written statement be accepted beyond 90 days. The High Court noted the trial court's view but did not interfere with the decision.The appellants argued that both trial court and High Court erred in not accepting their prayers. The respondent contended that the appellants were deliberately trying to harass an elderly plaintiff by prolonging proceedings.The Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 was discussed, emphasizing amendments aimed at expeditious disposal of civil suits while ensuring fairness and justice. The Amendment Act of 1999 limited the time for filing a written statement to 30 days, extendable to 90 days. The objective was to prevent delays and expedite case disposal.The judgment highlighted the importance of procedural laws in advancing justice and ensuring fair participation of parties. It emphasized that justice should not be delayed or hurried unjustly, and procedural laws should serve justice, not hinder it.The court discussed the power of courts to extend time for filing written statements beyond 90 days, considering whether the provision was mandatory or directory. Precedents were cited to determine the nature of provisions based on legislative intent and the impact on justice.The court ultimately set aside the High Court's order, allowing the appellants to file the written statement beyond 90 days. It emphasized the need for a liberal approach in cases involving close relatives as litigants and directed the trial court to complete the trial within six months.In conclusion, the appeal was allowed without costs, emphasizing the importance of balancing procedural rules with the principles of justice and fairness in legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
