Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News

Search ...

FACEBOOK
TWITTER
LINKEDIN
YOUTUBE






Home » Case Briefs » Powers Under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC To Be Exercised By The

Courts Only In Cases Of Set Off/Counter Claim

Powers under Order

VIII Rule 9 CPC to be
exercised by the
courts only in cases of
set off/counter claim
CASE BRIEFS HIGH COURTS

Published on October 4, 2018 – By Devika

Leave a comment NAVIGATION
    

Jharkhand High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Shree

Chandrashekhar, J., partly allowed a writ petition filed against
an order passed by the trial court whereby petitioner’s
application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC had been rejected by
the trial court.
The main issue that arose before the Court was whether the
Court can accept a written statement filed beyond the
statutory period in the form of additional pleadings under
Order VIII Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Another
ancillary issue, in this case, was whether a reply filed by the
defendant against an injunction application can be treated as
a written statement.
The Court observed that the provision of filing additional
documents under Order VIII Rule 9 is confined to cases where
the defendant has asked for a counter claim or a set off.
Powers of the Court to file a written statement cannot be
exercised to permit a party to file his written statement which
he has failed to file within the statutory period as provided
under O. VIII R-1 of CPC and, resultantly, debarred from filing
the written statement. The Court however observed that as
per the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in
NAVIGATION
Kuldeep Umraosingh Ostwal v. Chandrakant N. Patel, 2010 SCC
OnLine Bom 193, it is a settled principle of law that even if a
defendant has failed to file his written statement, stand taken
by him in opposition to the application for injunction shall be
treated as his written statement of defence in the suit.
The High Court held that the trial judge was correct in
rejecting the application of the petitioner under O. VIII R-9 of
CPC but the trial judge ought to have treated the reply of
petitioner to the injunction application as his written
statement of defence. Accordingly, the Court partly allowed
the writ petition. [Gouri Shankar Mahato v. Chepia Mahatain,
W. P. (C) No. 4413 of 2013, order dated 26-09-2018]
Tweet
Share this:

        More

TAGGED WITH: Counter Claims, Set Off

Written by Devika

PREVIOUS STORY
RMLNLU | Guest Lecture by Dr. Aniruddha Rajput on ‘Why International
Law matters for India’

NEXT STORY
ILNU organises Workshop on Agrarian Crisis in India: Challenges and
Way Forward
NAVIGATION