https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194147 An application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was rejected despite the written statement having already been filed and verified. The Delhi High Court noted that an adverse order could not be sustained once the written statement was on record, even though the proceedings had been repeatedly adjourned and were protracted. The procedural lapse and delay justified compensatory costs and a direction to supply the written statement to the opposite side before the trial court. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was restored for continuation in accordance with law with expedition directed. en-us Wed, 08 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194147 An application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was rejected despite the written statement having already been filed and verified. The Delhi High Court noted that an adverse order could not be sustained once the written statement was on record, even though the proceedings had been repeatedly adjourned and were protracted. The procedural lapse and delay justified compensatory costs and a direction to supply the written statement to the opposite side before the trial court. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was restored for continuation in accordance with law with expedition directed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 08 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194147