2008 (11) TMI 393 - SC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of statutes - Procedural law - Civil suit - Limitation for filing written statement - Rules of procedure - Objects and intention

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment dismissing writ petition questioning correctness of order rejecting application to set aside non-filing of written statement and not allowing defendants to file written statement beyond 90 days.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged a judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellants, who were defendants in a suit. The trial court rejected their application to set aside the order directing no written statement be accepted beyond 90 days. The High Court noted the trial court's view but did not interfere with the decision.

The appellants argued that both trial court and High Court erred in not accepting their prayers. The respondent contended that the appellants were deliberately trying to harass an elderly plaintiff by prolonging proceedings.

The Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 was discussed, emphasizing amendments aimed at expeditious disposal of civil suits while ensuring fairness and justice. The Amendment Act of 1999 limited the time for filing a written statement to 30 days, extendable to 90 days. The objective was to prevent delays and expedite case disposal.

The judgment highlighted the importance of procedural laws in advancing justice and ensuring fair participation of parties. It emphasized that justice should not be delayed or hurried unjustly, and procedural laws should serve justice, not hinder it.

The court discussed the power of courts to extend time for filing written statements beyond 90 days, considering whether the provision was mandatory or directory. Precedents were cited to determine the nature of provisions based on legislative intent and the impact on justice.

The court ultimately set aside the High Court's order, allowing the appellants to file the written statement beyond 90 days. It emphasized the need for a liberal approach in cases involving close relatives as litigants and directed the trial court to complete the trial within six months.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed without costs, emphasizing the importance of balancing procedural rules with the principles of justice and fairness in legal proceedings.