SAMBHAJI Vs. GANGABAI
LAWS(SC)-2008-11-134
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
November 20,2008
SAMBHAJI
Appellant
VERSUS
GANGABAI
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SANGRAN SINGH VS. ELECTION TRIBUNI KOTAH [REFERRED TO]RAZA BULAND SUGAR CO LIMITED RAMPUR VS. MUNICINAL BOARD RAMPUR [REFERRED TO]
SALEM ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION TAMIL NADU VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SHAIKH SALIM HAJI ABDUL KHAYUMSAB VS. KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
R N JADI VS. SUBHASHCHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. ALPS CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2021-9-1451] [REFERRED TO]DHANBAD FUELS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2021-2-48] [REFERRED TO]
AGP CITY GAS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. M/S. LYNX PROPERTIES & DEVELOPERS [LAWS(KER)-2022-5-23] [REFERRED TO]
KARAM CHAND VS. BILLU & ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2015-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN SHARMA VS. STATE OF H P AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-6-181] [REFERRED TO]
GURUDWARA BEI SEHJAL VS. GURPRAKASH [LAWS(HPH)-2022-3-42] [REFERRED TO]
KUNDLAS LOH UDYOG VS. ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER & ANR [LAWS(HPH)-2017-3-162] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV BAHAL YADAV S/O LATE PUJAN YADAV VS. SRI PATI NATH MOHADEO THROUGH RAJ KISHORE NARAYAN SINHA [LAWS(PAT)-2010-1-127] [REFERRED TO]
A.M. AHAMED & CO. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) [LAWS(MAD)-2014-8-220] [REFERRED TO]
RUMI RAM VS. JANTA RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2011-12-61] [REFERRED TO]
DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2010-8-98] [REFERRED TO]
NELCO LIMITED A COMPANY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-3-484] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP KUMAR MAHATO AND OTHERS VS. BISHNU KUMAR RAWANI AND OTHERS [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-4-118] [REFERRED TO]
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III VS. WIPRO LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2020-11-200] [REFERRED TO]
BHISHMLAL VS. ATAULLHA KHAN [LAWS(MPH)-2013-8-47] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMAR VS. ATAULLHA KHAN [LAWS(MPH)-2013-8-402] [REFERRED]
LALA RAM VS. DAMODAR PRASAD KHANDELWAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-1-340] [REFERRED TO]
HBR SALES PVT LTD VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-2011-1-148] [REFERRED TO]
SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED VS. CANDOR GURGAON TWO DEVELOPERS AND PROJECTS PVT LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2018-7-58] [REFERRED TO]
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS. SEA QUEEN SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2020-3-204] [REFERRED TO]
SARABJEET KAUR VS. SANDEEP SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2017-3-118] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRI DEVI VS. MAYA DEVI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2015-12-199] [REFERRED]
PARAS RAM VS. STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-7-57] [REFERRED TO]
AMAL CHANDRA DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2024-5-59] [REFERRED TO]
GORRIPATI VEERA VENKATA RAO VS. ETHALAPAKA VANAJA [LAWS(APH)-2025-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
OPERA GLOBAL PVT. LTD VS. TRAVEL PLANNERS PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2010-4-156] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHMA VS. KAPIL @ SAHIL BANSAL [LAWS(P&H)-2016-3-456] [REFERRED TO]
NATURES ESSENCE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. PROTOGREEN RETAIL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2021-3-95] [REFERRED TO]
NEELAM KUMARI VS. YOGENDER SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL BANK LTD VS. DULAL KANTI CHOWDHURY [LAWS(CAL)-2010-4-67] [REFERRED TO]
SATYABRAT SWAIN VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-I [LAWS(CE)-2014-9-39] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. VIJAY MOHAN JADHAV @ NANU [LAWS(BOM)-2021-11-124] [REFERRED TO]
YOVRAJ SINHA VS. RAM LAKHAN YADAV [LAWS(PAT)-2023-12-55] [REFERRED TO]
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. RENTWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2019-10-252] [REFERRED TO]
POOJA VS. RAKESH KUMAR @ JOHNY [LAWS(P&H)-2017-2-81] [REFERRED TO]
UNIWORTH TEXTILES LIMITED ETC. ETC. VS. CCE ETC. ETC. [LAWS(CE)-2010-2-171] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY MADANCHAND KASHYAP VS. MOOLCHAND SAHEBLAL KASHYAP [LAWS(BOM)-2014-7-66] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RASHEED PADDAR VS. PRAMOD SOOD [LAWS(HPH)-2015-12-53] [REFERRED TO]
YASHWINDER SINGH PARMAR VS. SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Writ petition filed by the appellants questioning correctness of the order passed by the trial court rejecting the application for setting aside the order directing that no written statement was to be accepted and also not allowing the appellants who are the defendants in RCS No. 99 of 2003 filed by respondent No. 1 the plaintiff to file written statement. Rest of the respondents are the defendants in the suit. Admittedly an order was passed stating that the written statement was not filed within the period of 90 days. An application was filed alongwith the written statement with two prayers; first prayer was to set aside the earlier order relating to non-filing of the written statement and second to accept the written statement along with the application. The trial court held that in terms of the amended Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the Rs. CPC), there was no scope for accepting a written statement filed beyond the fixed period of 90 days. The order was challenged before the High Court which noted that though the view of the trial court that it had no power to accept the written statement filed after 90 days was not correct in the circumstances of the case no case for interference was made out.
(3.)Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the factual scenario clearly showed that the trial court and the High Court erred in not accepting the prayers made.
(2.)Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Writ petition filed by the appellants questioning correctness of the order passed by the trial court rejecting the application for setting aside the order directing that no written statement was to be accepted and also not allowing the appellants who are the defendants in RCS No. 99 of 2003 filed by respondent No. 1 the plaintiff to file written statement. Rest of the respondents are the defendants in the suit. Admittedly an order was passed stating that the written statement was not filed within the period of 90 days. An application was filed alongwith the written statement with two prayers; first prayer was to set aside the earlier order relating to non-filing of the written statement and second to accept the written statement along with the application. The trial court held that in terms of the amended Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the Rs. CPC), there was no scope for accepting a written statement filed beyond the fixed period of 90 days. The order was challenged before the High Court which noted that though the view of the trial court that it had no power to accept the written statement filed after 90 days was not correct in the circumstances of the case no case for interference was made out.
(3.)Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the factual scenario clearly showed that the trial court and the High Court erred in not accepting the prayers made.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.