Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
5 judgments · newest first · showing 1–5
The plaintiffs, A.K. Ghosh & Co., filed a commercial suit for unpaid dues and the defendants filed a counter‑claim. The defendants served the counter‑claim on 18 July 2023, but the plaintiffs sought leave to file a written statement only on 15 March 2024, well beyond the statutory period. The …
The appellant, Chander Kanta Bansal, sought to amend her written statement 18 years after a 1986 suit for a right of passage was filed, invoking Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to introduce a 1982 partition agreement. The trial court allowed the amendment, but the Delhi High Court set aside that order, …
The appellants were served summons but filed their written statement two days after the 90‑day deadline prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The trial court nevertheless accepted the statement, a decision challenged before the Karnataka High Court on the ground that …
The appellant challenged the trial court’s acceptance of the respondent’s written statement, which was filed on 10 July 2004, well beyond the 30‑day normal period and the 90‑day maximum period prescribed under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as amended by the 2002 Amendment …
Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society filed revision petitions under Section 115 of the CPC against interim orders of a subordinate court. The High Courts dismissed the petitions, holding that the 1999 amendment to Section 115 made such interim orders non‑maintainable for revision. The Society appealed, …
