Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the order rejecting the petitioners' application to set aside the ex parte order, despite filing of the written statement within the time allowed but with formal defects, was liable to be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction.
Analysis: The written statement had been filed within the time granted by the court below, and the only difficulty was the presence of formal defects. Rejecting the application on the footing that no written statement had been filed was held to be hyper technical and unwarranted. The appropriate course was to afford an opportunity to cure the defects and proceed with the suit on merits. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was invoked to correct the error.
Conclusion: The order was set aside and the petitioners were permitted to cure the defects in the written statement within the time granted.
Final Conclusion: Interference was warranted to prevent a procedural default from defeating adjudication on merits, and the suit was directed to proceed in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a written statement has been filed within the time permitted by the court, a formal defect in it should ordinarily be cured rather than used to deny a party the opportunity to contest the suit on merits.