LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Court has discretion to extend the time for filing written statement if it’s reasonable

Esheta Lunkad ,
  14 September 2020       Share Bookmark

Court :

Brief :

Citation :
Petitioner: Mahadevamma Respondent:Mahadevamma Citation: AIR 2006 Kant 119

Bench:

P.V Shetty, H Ramesh

Issue:

Whether the court has the discretion for extending the time limit of 90 days for filing the written statement if it’s reasonable?

Facts:

  • Defendant was served with summons and he was given 90 days ,as is given in such a case, to file his written statement.
  • The defendant is a public officer of the State who wants to extend the 90 days limit of filing the written statement.
  • The officer of the State cannot act like a private party.
  • The question before the court is whether the court is justified in granting the extension of time , especially to a public officer and also make sure that the reason for which is reasonable and is not delaying the proceedings of the case.

Appellant's contentions:

  • It is not reasonable for the court to extend the time to file written statement as provided in Rule 1 Order VIII of CPC.
  • In Sathyapal Vs Yasim Banu Ansari, extension of time was not given.

Respondent's contentions:

  • The defendant is a public officer and he wants the extension of time as it is necessary for him to be given more than 90 days to file his statement.
  • Under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of Order XXVII , if the defendant is a public officer, then he can apply to the court to grant such extension.
  • Sub-rule 2 of Rule 7 of Order XXVII states that if the application is made, the court can extend the time as it deems to be necessary.
  • In the case of Kailash Vs Nankhu, the defendant being an officer of the state would require a little longer time than a private party

Final judgement:

  • The provision is a disability for the defendant &it does not put a restriction on the powers of the Court to extend it.
  • Provision is held directory & not mandatory.
  • There are no consequences stated of there is non- compliance of such.

Extension is allowed if it’s not in the

 

Enroll the Course on CPC by Mr. S.C Virmani:
Click Here

 
"Loved reading this piece by Esheta Lunkad?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Constitutional Law
Views : 216




Comments




LCI Learning Hindu Laws


Latest Judgments


More »


Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query