Skip to content


Hakkim Shah Vs. Basheer Khan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantHakkim Shah
RespondentBasheer Khan
Excerpt:
.....day delivered the following: op(c).no. 1183 of 2014 (o) appendix petitioner(s)' exhibits ext.p1 : true copy of ia no.2790 of2013in os no.126/2012 on the file of munsiff court,adoor. ext.p2 : true copy of b-dairy proceedings in os no.126/2012 on the file of munsiff court,adoor. ext.p3 : true copy of order dated242.2014 in ia no.2790 of2013in os no.126/2012 on the file of munsiff court, adoor. respondent(s)' exhibits : nil /true copy/ p.a. to judge. v. chitambaresh, j -------------------------------- op(c) no. 1183 of2014------------------------------------ dated this the 26th day of may, 2014 judgment the court below by order dated 15.11.2012 referred the parties to mediation and the case was adjourned to 07.03.2013. it was reported on 07.03.2013 that the mediation failed and hence the.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH MONDAY, THE26H DAY OF MAY2014/5TH JYAISHTA, 1936 OP(C).No. 1183 of 2014 (O) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER

DATED2402.2014 IN IA NO. 2790/2013 IN OS NO. 126/2012 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT,ADOOR PETITIONER(S)/PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------------------- M.A.HAKKIM SHAH, ADVOCATE, S/O.MEERA MANTTI RAWTHER PODIKALATHUMUDI AT KURUMBALA RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.44/520, GENERAL LANE, KALOOR P.O. KOCHI -682 017, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANT: -------------------------------------------- BASHEER KHAN, S/O.NATHIR RAWTHER, KULATHAPALLI VEEDU, KADAKAD PANDALAM PIN689501. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2605-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 1183 of 2014 (O) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF IA NO.2790 OF2013IN OS NO.126/2012 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT,ADOOR. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF B-DAIRY PROCEEDINGS IN OS NO.126/2012 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT,ADOOR. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER

DATED242.2014 IN IA NO.2790 OF2013IN OS NO.126/2012 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, ADOOR. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. V. CHITAMBARESH, J -------------------------------- OP(C) NO. 1183 OF2014------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of May, 2014 JUDGMENT

The court below by order dated 15.11.2012 referred the parties to mediation and the case was adjourned to 07.03.2013. It was reported on 07.03.2013 that the mediation failed and hence the suit was adjourned to 23.08.2013. The defendant did file the written statement on 23.08.2013 even though it was not strictly within 30 days as enjoined in Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The Supreme Court in Kailash Vs. Nanhku [2005 (2) KLT623(SC)] has held that time can be extended for filing written statement in exceptional circumstances. It has held therein as follows: "The extension of time sought for by the defendant from the Court whether within 30 days or 90 days, as the case may be, should not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for asking more so, when the period of 90 days has expired. The extension can be only by way of an exception and for reasons assigned by the defendant and also recorded in writing by the court to its satisfaction. It must be spelled out that a 2 OP(C) No. 1183/2014 departure from the time schedule prescribed by O. VIII, R.1 of the Code was being allowed to be made because the circumstances were exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and such extension was required in the interest of justice, and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended." 3. The court below has applied its mind and has thought it fit to receive the written statement though filed out of time in view of the mediation pending. It will be too technical to insist on a separate application for condonation of delay when the proceedings in the court below and the impugned order very much reflect the conciliation pending. Whether the written statement so received is otherwise defective for a lack of verification can be decided at the time of disposal of the suit. I am not inclined to interdict the proceedings in the suit in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction. The Original Petition is dismissed. V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE ncd


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //