1. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 1, 10 - Court has discretionary power to allow the defendant to file written statement even after expiry of period of 90 days provided in Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code - Moreover, the said provision being rule of procedure has been held to be directory and not mandatory in nature - This provision has to be applied with some flexibility and not with rigidity or inflexibility - Rules of procedure are handmaiden to the administration of justice and are meant to meet the ends of justice and not to thwart or obstruct the same. (175) P.L.R.
  2. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 1, Order 7, Rule 11 - Defendant had suffered a statement before the trial Court that he will not file a written statement and he will take his objection for rejection of the plaint to its logical end - The Court has, therefore, observed while dismissing the application that the defence is also struck  off - Would allow  for a statement to be received within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order - If statement is filed, same may be received and the Court shall also receive the draft of issues from the parties when the statement is filed and set the same at a hearing within a period of four weeks from then on and post the case for trial immediately thereafter. (173) P.L.R.
  3. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 1 - Evidence - Application for producing the documents - They were always accessible by the appellant/defendant and could have been produced at the earlier stages of the   suit - Respondent respondent/plaintiff has already been cross-examined on that aspect of the matter and the documents at that point of time were not summoned or produced by the appellant/defendant - Learned Single Judge has not erred in refusing leave under Order VIII Rule I.A. - Central Government Notification and is to be found in the official gazette and, therefore, could be produced before the Court at any stage.   D(182) P.L.R.
  4. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 1 - Filing of written statement - Permission as to - Provisions are directory and not mandatory and that the extension of time may be allowed if it is noted to be given to the circumstances which are exceptional and occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant or that grave injustice was occasioned if the time was not extend.  (179) P.L.R.
  5. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 1 - Striking of defence - Are directory in nature and not mandatory. (177) P.L.R.
  6. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 1 - Striking of defence - Are directory in nature and not mandatory. Balwinder Singh Alias Balwinder Singh Kamboj v. Sat Narain . (177) P.L.R.
  7. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 1 - Striking of the defence on failure to filing of the written statement - Provisions are not mandatory but directory in nature.  (182) P.L.R.
  8. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 1 - Written statement - Delay - It cannot be held that the court extended the time in routine - The Court has held that this delay was due to filing of applications by the plaintiff and the application filed by the defendant for setting aside the ex parte proceedings etc. - Otherwise also, this is a case filed by the plaintiff for compensation to the tune of Rs.15 crores.    (177) P.L.R.
  9. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 1 and Rule 10 - Non-filing of written statement - Defence struck off - Court has discretionary power to allow the defendant to file written statement even after expiry of period of 90 days provided in Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC - Moreover, the said provision being rule of procedure has to be held to be directory and not mandatory in nature - This provision has to be applied with some flexibility and not with rigidity or inflexibility - Rules of procedure are handmaid to the administration of justice and are meant to meet the ends of justice and not to thwart or obstruct the same.  (182) P.L.R.
  10. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 1-A(4) - Pleaded that the cause of action arose to the plaintiff against the defendant firstly about a month back and lastly on yesterday when he finally refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff - Defendant had not specifically denied the cause of action accrued to the respondent-plaintiffs - Suit filed claiming a declaration of ownership, cannot be said to be barred by law of limitation - Article 58 of the Limitation Act provides a period of three years to claim a declaration when a right to file suit accrues.  (178) P.L.R.
  11. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 1A(3) - Written statement is not accompanied by the documents which are mentioned therein - Discretion has been given to the Court under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the CPC to allow the defendant to produce the document in evidence, which ought to have been produced by him with the written statement, if the Court deems it fit. (177) P.L.R.
  12. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 1A(3) - Written statement is not accompanied by the documents which are mentioned therein - Discretion has been given to the Court under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the CPC to allow the defendant to produce the document in evidence, which ought to have been produced by him with the written statement, if the Court deems it fit. Aggarwal Vidya Pracharni Sabha  v. Municipal Corporation Faridabad . (177) P.L.R.
  13. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 3 - Plaintiff-petitioner want to examine expert by way of rebuttal evidence - Had concluded their evidence in the affirmative and reserved the right to produce evidence in rebuttal - Ground - That defendant while appearing in the witness box did not give clear answer as regards his signatures on the memo of partition - It is for the plaintiffs to prove their case in accordance with law on the basis of evidence - The fact his cross-examination did not make clear the point as to whether the said documents bear his signatures would not per se entitle the plaintiffs to examine a handwriting expert in rebuttal - Plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence to prove that the will is forged and in such circumstances at this stage when the case is fixed for rebuttal and final arguments, she cannot be permitted to delay the proceedings.      (177) P.L.R.
  14. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 5, Order 12, Rule 6 - Respondent/plaintiff in the application under Order 12, Rule 6 CPC specifically took up a stand that the legal notice terminating tenancy served by the respondent/plaintiff upon the appellant/defendant was replied to by the appellant/defendant by his reply - Stated "regarding legal notice etc everything will be decided in trial" is no denial as per Order 8 Rule 5 CPC to the factum of serving of the legal notice as also reply being given to the said legal notice terminating tenancy.
  15. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 5 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S. 58 - Will 30 years old - Due execution of Will, as pleaded by the plaintiff, has not been denied by the  defendants - Will stands proved and is deemed to have been admitted. (178) P.L.R.
  16. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 6-A - Plea that counter claim for possession could not have been filed after six years of filing of suit as it was not in consonance with the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC, has no force, for the reason that limitation to seek possession of the property is 12 years.  (182) P.L.R.
  17. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 6A - Counter claim - Counter-claim preferred by the defendant in a suit is in the nature of a cross-suit and by a statutory command even if the suit is dismissed, counter-claim shall remain alive for adjudication - The purpose of counter-claim is to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings - When counter-claim of the defendant is dismissed on adjudication, it forecloses the rights of the defendant subject to appeal. (182) P.L.R.
  18. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 6A(1) - Counter Claim is not maintainable either after filing of the written statement or framing of issues or even adducing evidence by either of the parties - Counter claim can be filed provided the cause of action had accrued to the defendant before the defendant had delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired. (182) P.L.R.
  19. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 6D - Counter claim - Return of plaint - Plaintiff could challenge the order on the ground that respondent No.2 was a proforma party and, therefore, the plaint could not have been ordered to be returned but plaintiff-respondent No.1 did not avail of the said remedy - In that eventuallity, the counter-claim could not be closed without any specific order passed by the trial court - Trial shall proceed to dispose of the counter-claim in accordance with law - The petitioner of course shall have to pay the amount of Court fee as applicable on the counter-claim. (177) P.L.R.
  20. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 6D - Counter claim - Return of plaint - Plaintiff could challenge the order on the ground that respondent No.2 was a proforma party and, therefore, the plaint could not have been ordered to be returned but plaintiff-respondent No.1 did not avail of the said remedy - In that eventuallity, the counter-claim could not be closed without any specific order passed by the trial court - Trial shall proceed to dispose of the counter-claim in accordance with law - The petitioner of course shall have to pay the amount of Court fee as applicable on the counter-claim. Surju Ram  v.  Shitla Parshad . (177) P.L.R.
  21. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8, Rule 9 - Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, Volume 5, Chapter 1, Part-E - Replication is always part of the pleadings and even as per the High Court Rules & Orders in Volume 1 Chapter 1 Part E dealing with the written statements, set-off and counterclaims under Clause 3, it is provided that where defendant has filed written statement, the Court may call upon the plaintiff to file the written statement in reply - Replication.  (178) P.L.R.
  22. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  8 - Written statement - Whether a minor, after attaining the age of majority, has a right to file an additional written statement, without repudiating the averments made in the written statement filed on his behalf by his guardian - Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) S. 3 - Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) - That if a minor has a right to repudiate any action of his guardian upon attaining the age of majority by filing a suit within a period of 3 years, he would certainly have a right to take extra pleadings after attaining the age of majority which were not taken by the Court Guardian/Guardian due to ignorance and which could adversely affect the interest of such a person who could not plead his case on his own due to his legal disability at that time - Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) S. 3 - Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963). (178) P.L.R.