The High Court dismissed a writ petition implicating an order refusing a delayed opportunity to file a written statement in a property suit. The court found no error in the trial court's application of the 90-day limitation under CPC.
The writ petition, stay application, and pending applications were dismissed.
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.
[2023:RJ-JP:14651]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6175/2005
R/o.Plot No.2-A, Vidyadhar Nagar, Shiv Colony, Jaipur at present Plot No.48-A, James Colony, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.M. Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.C. Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
19/07/2023
[2023:RJ-JP:14651]
(2 of 5)
[CW-6175/2005]
vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, wherein after service of notice upon the petitioners/ defendants, their counsel was putting appearance since 07.02.2003 before the trial court. When the written statement was not filed within the time prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, the opportunity to file the written statement was closed vide order dated 13.08.2003. On 27.08.2004 an application was submitted by the petitioners /defendants for allowing them an opportunity to submit the written statement stating that after service of summons they engaged the counsel who was appearing before the trial court on their behalf since 07.02.2003 and the said counsel assured them that they are not required to appear before the trial court on each and every date. On 27.08.2004 the petitioners/ defendants appeared before the trial court and on perusal of the record came to know that no written statement has been filed on their behalf and the opportunity of submitting the written statement was closed. It was prayed by the petitioners /defendants in the application that there was no ill intention of them in not submitting the written statement and therefore, they may be allowed an opportunity to submit the written statement.
[2023:RJ-JP:14651]
(3 of 5)
[CW-6175/2005]
[2023:RJ-JP:14651]
[CW-6175/2005]
(4 of 5)
[2023:RJ-JP:14651]
[CW-6175/2005]
(5 of 5)
trial court after examining and discussing the facts in detail dismissed by the application of the petitioners/ defendants vide order dated 04.05.2005. Against the order dated 04.05.2005, the petitioners/ defendants filed this writ petition on 03.06.2005 but no sincere efforts were made by the petitioners/ defendants for getting its disposal of petition since 2005. It is also required to mention here that when the writ petition was listed on 16.09.2011, none was present on behalf of the petitioners/ defendants and the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. However, the same was restored on 19.02.2018. But even after 2018, no sincere efforts were made by the petitioners/ defendants.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
Sharma NK-Dy.Registrar/22
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned order dismissing the petitioners' application for an opportunity to file a written statement.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dana Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Rudha Ram and Sri Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Rudha Ram
Addl Civil Judge (J.D.), West, Jaipur City
Ratan Devi W/o Shri Jagdish Prasad
Vishnu Kumar Tailor
Ganesh Ram Meena
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
