Allowed

Raimal and Ors. v. Mishrilal

Rajasthan HC21 Feb 2019CW/6118/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside an order that rejected a written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. The Court held that the delay was not deliberate due to the Presiding Officer's absence and the procedural provision is directory.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 21.04.2016 rejecting the written statement is set aside, and the written statement shall be taken on record.

Raimal and Ors. Vs Mishrilal — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 6118/2016

Raimal And Ors

----Petitioners

Versus

Mishrilal

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ No. 6119/2016

Raimal And Ors

----Petitioners

Versus

Jethmal

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Punit Parihar.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶17

Order

¶18

21/02/2019

¶19

The petitioners by way of the writ petitions are challenging the order dated 21.04.2016 whereby application moved by the plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC for rejecting the written statement has been allowed.

¶20

Learned counsel submits that the reply has already been filed. In the reply/ written statement filed by the petitionersdefendants, there was delay of only 1 month and 6 days on account of Presiding Officer not being present. The same has not been treated to be a valid ground for condoning the delay in filing of the written statement by the learned Judge while passing the impugned order.

¶21

Learned counsel submits that as the petitioners defendants were prevented from filing the written statement on account of

¶22

(2 of 2)

¶23

[CW-6118/2016]

¶24

bona-fide reasons, the delay of 1 month and 6 days in filing the written statement ought to have been condoned.

¶25

It is submitted that after filing of the written statement the application was moved by the plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC for rejecting the written statement and the same was allowed. The order deserves to be set aside on the submission that the period of 90 days as prescribed for filing the written statement under order 8 Rule 1 CPC is a directory provision and if there is a valid reason coming forward, the delay in filing the written statement can be condoned.

¶26

The facts, as noted above, show that the petitioners were prevented from filing the written statement on account of absence of Presiding Officer of the Court and the delay therefore cannot be treated to be deliberate. Accordingly, it ought to have been condoned by the Presiding Officer.

¶27

The petitions are accordingly allowed and the order dated 21.04.2016 is set aside. The written statement, which has already been filed by the petitioners-defendants, shall be taken on record.

¶28

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶29

195-Ashutosh/-

Raimal and Ors. v. Mishrilal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raimal and Ors. v. Mishrilal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhartiya Sanskriti Sanvardhak Trust Vs Marwar Tent House

Bharat Kumar Rawal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shiva Explosives India Pvt. Ltd, Vs State of Rajasthan

Subhash Soni Vs State and Ors.

Poona Ram Vs Mohan Ram and Ors.

Amar Singh Vs Union of India New Delhi and Ors.