MOHAMMED YUSUF versus FAIJ MOHAMMAD & ORS .

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 02-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, CYRIAC JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 20 
MOHAMMED YUSUF 
II. 
FAIJ MOHAMMAD & ORS . 
. (Civil Appeal No. 7209 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 2, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRJAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
Articles 226 and 227 - High Court in writ jurisdiction 
setting aside ord,ers of trial and revisional courts whereby 
they had rejected defendant's application under Or.8 r.10 
CPC for extending time to file written statement - HELQ: 
Jurisdiction of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 is 
limited - It could have set-aside the orders only on the ground 
of illegality, iffationality and procedural impropriety .;.. Trial 
court had assigned sufficient and cogent reasons in support 
of its orders - High Court effed in setting aside the orders 
without assigning any reason therefor - Judgment of High 
Court set aside - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 8, 
r.10. 
R.N. Jadi & Brothers and Ors. Vs. Subhashchandra 
(2007) 6 SCC 420 and M. Srinivasa Prasad & Ors. Vs. The 
Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Ors. 2007 (5) 
SCALE 171, relied on. 
Kai/ash Vs. Nanhku and Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 480, 
referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(20QS) 4 sec 480 
2007 (5) SCALE 171 
(2001) s sec 420 
20 
referred to 
relied on 
relied on 
para 11 
para 13 
para 13 
~
MOHAMMED YUSUF v. FAIJ MOHAMMAD & ORS. 
21 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No .. 
A 
-I 
7209 of 2008 . 
...... 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.9.2007 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 
45197 of 2007. 
B 
R.S. Hegde, Ohandra Prakash and P .P. Singh for the 
Appellant. 
~ 
M.P. Shorawala, Jyoti Saxena, Vipin K. Saxena and T.N. 
Saxena for the Respondents. 
c 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
• 
ORDER 
Leave granted. 
D 
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order 
_.._ 
dated 20.9.1997 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowing the writ petition filed 
by the respondents herein questioning the validity of an order 
dated 29.8.2007 passed by the learned Additional District 
E 
Judge, Mathura in Civil Revision No. 322/2005 affirming the 
order dated 24.10.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge 
whereby and whereunder while rejecting the application filed 
by the appellant herein under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of 
Civil Procedure, a date was fixed for recording the evidence 
F 
. ..._ 
of the plaintiffs and the application filed by the respondents 
--< 
herein praying for condoning the delay in filing the written 
statement was rejected. 
2. The basic fact of the matter is oot in dispute. 
G 
3. Appellant herein filed a suit for a decree for permanent 
..,. 
injunction in the year 2002. A separate application for grant of 
temporary injunction was also filed. Summons upon the 
defendants were served on 6.7.2002. The defendants 
appeared through their learned advocate on 19.7.2002. 
H 
' 
22 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 17 S.C.R. 
.A 
4. Appellant filed an appiication for grant of temporary 
injunction which was rejected on 28.1.2004. An appeal was 
~ 
preferred thereagainst which wa·s disposed of by ~n order 
dated 14.5.2004. It is neither in doubt nor in ·dispute th~t the 
defendants-respondents filed applications for extensi9n 'of time 
B for filing written statement number of times. The matter was also 
adjourned on one ground or the other. 
5, On or about 31.1.2005, the appellant also filed an 
application before the learned trial Judge for pronouncing 
y 
c 
judgment in terms of Order 8 Rule 1 O of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, inter a/ia, on the premise that the defendants-
respondents did not file any written statement. It is on_ the same 
date the defendants filed an application for filing written , 
.... 
statement. No application for condonation of del~y in filing the 
written statement was, however, filed. -
D 
6. However, on 23.9.2005, as indicated hereinbefore by 
reason of an order dated 24.10.2005, while rejecting the said 
~--
application of the respondent, the trial Judge allowed the plaintiff 
to ex~mine his own witnesses in supportof his case. 
.. 
E 
7. A Revision Petition was filed by the respondents which 
by reas_on of an order dated ~9.8.2007 was dismissed by the 
teamed District Judge. 
, 
. 
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, 
F the respondents filed ·a Writ Petition which was marked as 
-+ 
CMWP No. 45197/2007 before the High Court. By reason of 
the impugn~d judgment, the High Court has
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.