Andeep Singh v. Gram Panchayat And Others
!"#"$%&%'(
) * "!%!%'" + , -+**
,-* .
- * "&/'0"'!
,( 1*,
-2 *3
!
"# # ## $%& '(
)+ &
,"!-.,# ## +)*
,
/
0 ", 0 "1
&&&
) +
)
+
&
+& &
& &
)/
*
&
&
1
&
+
)/
1
.
# ##
%
*
!
!
# ##
6
".
# ##
8&
& #'
# ##
&
& 9"
# ##
&
+
*
0 9"
# ##
+
*
& "'
# ##
;
& ; ""
<& "'
; "'
# ## *
& ; ""
<& "'
&
& # ## *
=+ ;
# ## '
# ##
& !
"# # ## # ##
6
9"
# ##
/ &
,
/
; %
!
"# # ##
8&
/
) ) &&&
&
2 &) &
%
)+
+ &
& )*
*
> &
)
&
)& +
&
) &
)
% *
* &
+ # "-
=?) &
1 1 - # ## + +
& ?
!"#$% &%
& ; @222 <& *
3&
& * + ) + )& * )
& )
? &
(iv) The purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. The provision spells out a disability on the defendant. It does not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time. Though, the language of the proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII of the CPC is couched in negative form, it does not specify any penal consequences flowing from the non- compliance. The provision being in the domain of the Procedural Law, it has to be held directory and not mandatory. The power of the Court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC is not completely taken away.
/ &
&
+ %
)*
&
; @222 <&
>
% *
*
&
& %
)
)*
2
3
A /, B A ) B,0