LexM/S R.N. JADI & BROTHERS AND ORS. versus SUBHASHCHANDRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- ' ->- . MIS R.N. JADI & BROTHERS AND ORS. A v. SUBHASHCHANDRA JULY I 0, 2007 [DR. ARIHT PASAYA T, P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] B Code of Civil Procedure, '1908: Order VIII Rule I and proviso thereto-Written statement filed beyond , 90 days from the date of service of summons-Trial court accepting written C statement-High Court holding that the written statement filed beyond 90 days from the date of service could not have been accepted-Held: Date fixed by. trial court for filing written statement fell beyond 90 days and written statement was filed on the date fu:ed--ln the facts and circumstances of the case, mCvcim of equity-actus curiae neminem gravabit and lex non D cogit ad impossibilia, is applicable-Thus, order of High Court set aside"- Written statement filed beyond 90 days to be duly taken note of by trial Court-Maxims. Order VIII Rule t and proviso thereto-Nature and object of-Held: ProvisiOn casts obligation on defendant to file written statement within 30 E days from the date of service of summons and within the extended time of 90 days-It neither deals with nor specifically takes away the power of court to take written statement on record though filed beyond time-Provision is _.procedural and not part of substantive /~It -intends to curb the mischief ofunscrupu/ous defendants adopting dilatory taetics in delaying the disposal ofcases-Object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle it~onsequences F flowing from non-extension of time are not specifically provided though they mtiy be read by necessary implication. Interpretation of statutes: _ _ _ _ Procedural /awl proeessual law-Held: -Object of prescribing procedure G is to advance the cause of justice though language may be liberal or stringent-Provisions relating to participation of party in any adversarial system should be so construed that no party should_ be denied opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensatiorr-Unless compelled by 241 . H 242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R. A express and specific language of statute, provisions of CPC or any other .. ·--<_""" procedural enact"!ent ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extra-ordinary situations in ends of justice. Provision of law-Mandatory or dir~ctory-Held: Merely because a B provision of law is couched in a negative language implying mandatory character, it is not without exceptions-Courts keeping in view the entire context in which the provision came to be enacted, hold it to be directory. -+ Trial Court issued summons to the appellants. Appellants did not file _., the written statement within 90 days from the date of service of summons. It c was filed two days later. Trial court accepted the written statement. Respondent challenged the order on the ground that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, 1908 was mandatory and as such the trial court could not have accepted written statement filed beyond 90 days fh>m the date of service. High Court allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved appellant filed appeal and the same was held not maintainable. Appellants then filed review petition relying on D *Kai/ash v. Nanhku and Ors's case that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 being directory, the reasons justifying the delayed presentation of the written statement could be satisfactorily explained. Review Petition was dismissed. Hence the present appeal Allowing the appeal, the Court E HELD: Per Pasayat, J (For himself and D.I(. Jain, J): l.1. Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 after the amendment casts an obligation on the defendant to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him and within the F extended time falling within 90 days. The provision does not deal with the J.:- power of the court and also does not specifically take away the power of the court to take the written statement on record though filed beyond the time as provided for. Further, the nature of the provision contained in Order Vlll, Rule 1 is procedural. It is not a part of the substantive law. Substituted Order VIII, G Rule I intends to curb the mischief of unscrupulous.defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of cases causing inconvenience to tfle plaintiffs and petitioners approaching the court for quick relief and also to the serious inconvenience of the court faced with frequent pray
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.