Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Raj Kumar Vs Ashok Kumar

    Uploaded by

    RONAK PATTANAIK
    The document summarizes a court case where the defendant filed a petition to place his written statement and reply on record after they were misplaced from the court file. The judge ruled to grant the defendant a final opportunity to file the documents within 15 days and pay a fine, in order to avoid further delay in the case which had been pending since 2006.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Raj Kumar Vs Ashok Kumar

    Uploaded by

    RONAK PATTANAIK
    4 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a court case where the defendant filed a petition to place his written statement and reply on record after they were misplaced from the court file. The judge ruled to grant the defendant a final opportunity to file the documents within 15 days and pay a fine, in order to avoid further delay in the case which had been pending since 2006.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a court case where the defendant filed a petition to place his written statement and reply on record after they were misplaced from the court file. The judge ruled to grant the defendant a final opportunity to file the documents within 15 days and pay a fine, in order to avoid further delay in the case which had been pending since 2006.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    4 views2 pages

    Raj Kumar Vs Ashok Kumar

    Uploaded by

    RONAK PATTANAIK
    The document summarizes a court case where the defendant filed a petition to place his written statement and reply on record after they were misplaced from the court file. The judge ruled to grant the defendant a final opportunity to file the documents within 15 days and pay a fine, in order to avoid further delay in the case which had been pending since 2006.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

    Page 1 Monday, July 11, 2022


    Printed For: RONAK PATTANAIK, KIIT School of Law
    SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
    © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CR No. 6390 of 2010 (O&M)

    Raj Kumar v. Ashok Kumar

    2010 SCC OnLine P&H 11368

    (BEFORE ALOK SINGH, J.)

    Raj Kumar .…. Petitioner


    v.
    Ashok Kumar .…. Respondents
    Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
    None for the respondent.
    CR No. 6390 of 2010 (O&M)
    Decided on November 10, 2010

    Alok Singh, J.(Oral)

    Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 1.9.2010 passed by the Additional
    Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ludhiana, whereby application moved by the defendant
    seeking permission to place on record written statement and reply to the ad interim
    injunction application, was declined.

    From the perusal of the record, it seems that the defendant has moved an application
    before the trial Court stating therein that he has placed on record written statement
    and reply to the ad interim injunction application and the same got misplaced from
    the file of the trial Court. From the perusal of the report, it is further revealed that now
    the defendant wants to place on record written statement and reply to the ad interim
    injunction application. The trial Court has rejected the application seeking permission
    to place on record written statement and reply to the ad interim injunction application.

    Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that although, written statement
    and reply to the ad interim injunction application was filed, however, the same was
    misplaced from the court records. He further states that to avoid any complication,
    defendant is seeking permission to place on record written statement and reply to the
    ad interim injunction application. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that
    defendant remained in confusion that written statement and reply to the ad interim
    injunction application was filed, however, in view of the peculiar facts and
    circumstances of this case, last opportunity should be granted to the defendant to
    place on record written statement and reply to the ad interim injunction application.

    The Apex Court in the matter of Kailash v. Nankhu reported in 2005 (4) SCC 480, has
    observed that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are not mandatory but are
    directory in nature and on sufficient grounds being shown, an opportunity should be
    granted to the defendant to file written statement beyond the period of 90 days.

    In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and to avoid undue delay in
    disposal of the application and suit, which is pending since 2006, I direct that the
    defendant shall file written statement and reply to the ad interim injunction
    application within 15 days from today. Defendant-petitioner shall also pay Rs. 5,000/-
    to the plaintiff - respondent as costs on or before the date of filing of the written
    statement and reply to the ad interim injunction application.
    SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
    Page 2 Monday, July 11, 2022
    Printed For: RONAK PATTANAIK, KIIT School of Law
    SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
    © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although, notices were issued to the respondents but the same have not been
    received back served or otherwise, hence without issuing fresh notice to the
    respondent, present petition is disposed of with the direction that if the respondent
    feels aggrieved from the present order, he shall be at liberty to move an appropriate
    application for recall of the order.

    (Alok Singh)

    Judge

    10.11.2010

    sk.

    ———
    Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
    notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
    or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
    rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
    authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

    You might also like