High Court set aside the trial court's order closing the defendants' right to file a written statement in property partition proceedings and extended time to file the statement subject to payment of costs.
Impugned order dated 04.10.2018 set aside. Time to file written statement extended till 25th March 2019 on payment of Rs. 5,000 cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (227) No. 1024 of 2018
----Appellants/Defendants
Versus
---- Respondents/Plaintiffs.
For Petitioners : Shri Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Shri S.K. Agrawal, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
15/03/2019
2
“ 5. Once an application is filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the court has to dispose of the same before proceeding with the trial. There is no point or sense in proceeding with the trial of the case, in case the plaint (election petition in the present case) is only to be rejected at the threshold. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to file the application for rejection before filing his written statement. In case the application is rejected, the defendant is entitled to file his written statement thereafter (see Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra3 )
1 (2005) 4 SCC 480
2 (2016) 14 SCC 275
3 (2003) 1 SCC 557
3
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge
D/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court was justified in closing the defendants' right to file a written statement before disposing of their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Whether the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC are mandatory or directory in nature.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kailash V. NanhkuReferred¶22
Kailash V. Nanhku 1 (2005) 4 SCC 480 · Who else cites this
R.K. Roja Vs. U.S. Rayudu and anotherApplied¶22
R.K. Roja Vs. U.S. Rayudu and another2 (2016) 14 SCC 275 · Who else cites this
Saleem Bhai v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶26
Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra3 (2003) 1 SCC 557 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Firo Bai Yadav
Laxmi Yadav
Sulekha Yadav
Sulochana Yadav
Kusum Yadav
Rewati Yadav
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
