Runs Mon vs Simpole

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Aug 04, 2021

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1591566

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1591566
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice V.G.Arun
Decided On: Aug 04, 2021
Case Number: OP(C)/34/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Runs Mon

Respondent

Simpole

Excerpt

.....below condoned the delay in filing the written statement and accepted the written statement on payment of cost. learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the question as to whether written statement filed beyond the period prescribed under order 8 rule 1 can be accepted, is finally settled by the five judge's bench ruling of honorable supreme court in new india assurance company ltd. vs. hilli multipurpose cold storage pvt. ltd. [2020 (2) khc 274]'. therein, the apex court has held that the rigor of filing written statement within the stipulated time is strictly applicable in cases coming under the commercial courts act and that, as far as the code of civil procedure is concerned the court is vested with discretion to decide whether the written statement is to be accepted or not.2. learned counsel for the respondent points out that the issue was first decided by the honorable supreme court in deshraj vs. balkishan (d) through proposed lr ms. rohini [2020 khc 6047] and has been referred to in hilli multi purpose cold storage (supra) . the counsel's being in unison that the court below is vested with the discretion to extend the time prescribed underorder 8 rule 1 and the court below having exercised suchdiscretion and having condoned the delay in filing the written statement by imposing cost, i see no reason to interfere with theorder.accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. sd/- v.g arun judge sj appendix of op(c) 34/2020 petitioner exhibits exhibit p1 true copy of the ia no.484/2019 in judges court, manjeri dated 21.06.2019 exhibit p2 true copy of the objection filed by the petitioner in i.a.no.484/2019 in judges court, manjeri dated 20.07.2019 exhibit p3 true copy of the order in ia no.484/2019 in judges court, manjeri dated 27.08.2019 exhibit p4 true copy of the memo filed by the counsel forthe petitioner in ia no.484/2019 in o.s.no.77/2019 on the file of the subordinate judges court, manjeri dated 30.08.2019

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1943 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 77/2018 OF SUB COURT, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM PETITIONER/S: RUNS MON AGED 43 YEARS S/O.K.T.ABRAHAM, PROPRIETOR, K.P.A PETROLEUM RELIANCE OUTLET, NILAMBUR AMSOM AND TALUK, MALAPPURAM-679329 BY ADVS. K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI RESPONDENT/S: SIMPOLE AGED 36 YEARS S/O.VARKEY, POTTAKKAL HOUSE, VADAPURAM, MAMPAD AMSOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM-679329 BY ADV SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4th day of August, 2021

The challenge in this original petition is against Ext.P3 order

by which the Court below condoned the delay in filing the written statement and accepted the written statement on payment of cost. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the question as to whether written statement filed beyond the period prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 can be accepted, is finally settled by the Five Judge's Bench ruling of Honorable Supreme Court in New India assurance Company Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. [2020 (2) KHC 274]'. Therein, the Apex Court has held that the rigor of filing written statement within the stipulated time is strictly applicable in cases coming under the Commercial Courts Act and that, as far as the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned the court is vested with discretion to decide whether the written statement is to be accepted or not.

2. Learned Counsel for the respondent points out that the issue was first decided by the Honorable Supreme Court in Desh

Raj Vs. Balkishan (D) through proposed LR Ms. Rohini [2020 KHC 6047] and has been referred to in Hilli Multi Purpose Cold Storage (supra) . The Counsel's being in unison that the Court below is vested with the discretion to extend the time prescribed under

Order 8 Rule 1 and the Court below having exercised such

discretion and having condoned the delay in filing the written statement by imposing cost, I see no reason to interfere with the

order.

Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. Sd/- V.G ARUN JUDGE SJ APPENDIX OF OP(C) 34/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.484/2019 IN JUDGES COURT, MANJERI DATED 21.06.2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A.NO.484/2019 IN JUDGES COURT, MANJERI DATED 20.07.2019 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.484/2019 IN JUDGES COURT, MANJERI DATED 27.08.2019 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR

THE PETITIONER IN IA NO.484/2019 IN O.S.NO.77/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, MANJERI DATED 30.08.2019

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2021 Same Parties Runs Mon vs Simpole Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice V.G.Arun