Karpuri Devi and anr. Vs. Rabindra Pratap Singh and ors.

Karpuri Devi and anr. vs Rabindra Pratap Singh and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Jharkhand Decided Jul 02, 2004

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/518836

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/518836
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.
Decided On: Jul 02, 2004
Case Number: WP (C) No. 2765 of 2004
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Article 215: [M. Karpaga Vinayagam, CJM, .Y.Eqbal & Amareshwar Sahay, R.K. Merathia, Narendra Nath Tiwari, JJ] Contempt Proceedings Review Powers of High Court Held, Article 215 of the Constitution vests the High Court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish fo...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 148 - Order 7, Rule 14 - Order 8, Rule 1

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Karpuri Devi and anr.

Advocate D.K. Prasad,; Rabindra Prasad and; Manoj Kumar, Advs

Respondent

Rabindra Pratap Singh and ors.

Advocate Anjani Kumar Singh, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 148 - Order 7, Rule 14 - Order 8, Rule 1
Cases Referred: Pitambar Singh and Ors. v. Makar Singh and Ors.
Reported In: [2004(3)JCR579(Jhr)]

Excerpt

.....the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of contemner/lawyer before high court as well as courts under its jurisdiction is based on his repeated convictions for contempt in the past is not violative of article 19(g) of the constitution. no interference in exercise of review jurisdiction is warranted. - i also find that the karnataka high court on a consideration of the relevant aspects has held that at best the court can extend the time for filing a written statement only by a period of thirty days in the light of the amendment brought about in section 148 of the code......and grant some additional time to a defendant to file a written statement, it could not do so, since the object sought to be achieved by the amendment is to avoid delay in disposal of suits filed in court. though, up to myself i would be inclined to show some leniency and allow the defendants to file a written statement by putting them on terms, i find that it will not be proper in the light of the relevant provisions of the code and the decision of this court which has been followed by the trial court and on the facts of this case, in the light of the earlier order passed by the trial court on 19.11.2003 barring the defendants from filing a written statement, which they have not sought to get reviewed or recalled. i also find that the karnataka high court on a consideration of the relevant aspects has held that at best the court can extend the time for filing a written statement only by a period of thirty days in the light of the amendment brought about in section 148 of the code. in the present case, the written statement sought was to be filed even beyond 30 days of the expiry of the period fixed. in this situation, though with some hesitation, i decline to interfere with the order of the court below. i dismiss this proceeding.5. it is seen that the courts are not insisting on plaintiff's fulfilling the requirement of order vii, rule 14 of the code of civil procedure by producing the original documents in their possession along with the plaint. the courts will insist on production of the original documents by plaintiffs- along with the plaint and take note of the fact that production of photostat copies would not amount to compliance with order vii, rule 14 of the code of civil procedure.

Full Judgment

P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.

1. Heard counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, learned counsel, who entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, who were the plaintiffs in the suit. Since, the other respondents are only co-defendants with the petitioners, I do not think it necessary to issue notices to them in this writ petition. I am, therefore, disposing of this matter finally after hearing counsel for the petitioners and counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

2. In a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiffs, the respondents herein, the petitioners, entered appearance on 31.7.2003. They did not file a written statement within thirty days thereof and not even within the ninety days fixed. Therefore, by the order dated 19.11.2003 the Court debarred them from filing a written statement and decided to proceed with the suit. Thereafter, on 15.12.2003 the defendants purported to file a written statement along with a petition for accepting the same. But it is seen that they did not even seek a modification or review of the order dated 19.11.2003 earlier passed by the trial Court. On the basis of the earlier order and in the light of the decision of this Court in Pitambar Singh and Ors. v. Makar Singh and Ors., 2003 (4) JLJR 427 : 2004 (1) JCR 601 (Jhr), and taking note of the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the amendment brought to it and the intention behind the amendment, the trial Court found that the defendants cannot be permitted to file the written statement and thereby their prayer was rejected. This proceeding challenges that order.

3. Going by provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be said that the trial Court was in error in refusing to accept the written statement. The trial Court was also justified in following the decision of this Court in Pitambar Singh and Ors. v. Makar Singh and Ors., 2004 (1) JCR 601 (Jhr): 2003 (4) JLJR 427. It may be noted that the power of the Court to extend the time for doing anything fixed by the Code or by an order of Court, has also been curtailed by the proviso to Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure by restricting the period of extension to one month. Even by that time, the written statement had not been filed by the defendants. In such a situation, the trial Court cannot be faulted for refusing to allow the prayer of the defendants.

4. This Court is troubled by another aspect. The suit is for specific performance. Obviously, without a written statement, the defendants would not be in a position to defend the suit properly. It is not as if the defendants have attempted to file a written statement after the issues were settled or after the trial has commenced. No doubt, they were not very deligent in the context of the relevant provisions of the Code and had taken their own time to file the written statement, but had filed the same before the suit reached the evidence stage. In the light of the intention expressed by Parliament, the Court even if it is inclined to exercise its discretion and grant some additional time to a defendant to file a written statement, it could not do so, since the object sought to be achieved by the amendment is to avoid delay in disposal of suits filed in Court. Though, up to myself I would be inclined to show some leniency and allow the defendants to file a written statement by putting them on terms, I find that it will not be proper in the light of the relevant provisions of the Code and the decision of this Court which has been followed by the trial Court and on the facts of this case, in the light of the earlier order passed by the trial Court on 19.11.2003 barring the defendants from filing a written statement, which they have not sought to get reviewed or recalled. I also find that the Karnataka High Court on a consideration of the relevant aspects has held that at best the Court can extend the time for filing a written statement only by a period of thirty days in the light of the amendment brought about in Section 148 of the Code. In the present case, the written statement sought was to be filed even beyond 30 days of the expiry of the period fixed. In this situation, though with some hesitation, I decline to interfere with the order of the Court below. I dismiss this proceeding.

5. It is seen that the Courts are not insisting on plaintiff's fulfilling the requirement of Order VII, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure by producing the original documents in their possession along with the plaint. The Courts will insist on production of the original documents by plaintiffs- along with the plaint and take note of the fact that production of Photostat copies would not amount to compliance with Order VII, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2004 Same Parties Karpuri Devi and anr. vs Rabindra Pratap Singh and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 148 - Order 7...

Civil