Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)Ramgopal And Anr. vs Khiv Raj And Ors. on 6 February, 1998
defendant had not filed the WI:-§ttAen'stat«em.ent it
she was denied the permission to I1'-le vvritt;3n"statementweV
against which she had 'which
was rejected by he would
contend that What defendant did
not possess' into service by
the legal " a and as such he
supported trial court and seeks
for "petition. He would also rely
upon. the lltdeeis-m'n in the Case of VIDYAWATI vs. MAN
'' V' orniiiiis reported in AIR 1995 so Pg 1653
andlp' AND ANOTHER vs. KHIV RAJ AND
oi"-m::1gs' .féported in Am 1998 RAJASTHAN Pg 98 in
" " 'A : support of his submission. W
Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005
provisions including the proviso to
Rule 1 of the CPC are not
directory. It has been ;?te1_:d
decision that the delay canbe 3
and the written "'st:atement_
accepted even ;..r1ftery..the."ex'j)i.ry of 90 days
from the date' summons in
exceptionally hVas"also been
held in"tligt."'Lz.se of the word
"shalll' by itself is
not- de'iern*iine whether the
'or directory. The use
of t_he,Lvord ""sh.ali.'fVl'4is ordinarily indicative of
_mand'at_ory. .nat'ure'":of the provision but having
regard to lithe--eiecision in that case, the same
b.e"construed as directory. In paragraph
"said decision, this court observed as
X foiio_u%s}-
A.V. Purushotam vs N.K. Nagaraj on 5 June, 2003
_v»j»'pr:oeediire are hand--m.aid of
justice and"i«ts"n.1istress. In the present
V. _ context. the stric't':interpretation would defeat
" jiistice. _____ .. e
[Emphasis supplied by me)
8_..'7Tf;:i"s Court in the ease of A.V. PURUSHOTAM vs.
N.K. reported in ILR 2003 Kar 2459 has held
of the written statement within the period
stipuiated under Order 8 Rule 1 is a "rule".
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1