Manju Sharma v. Gaurav Vashisht
!" #$%$!&' ((
' )* (+
, % &'
----
.(
*
!
" #$ %&'()* *+ , *)- . () %. . /
% * . * () .) ()( 2.
Learned counsel for revisionist submits that impugned order has resulted into grave miscarriage of justice and for effective adjudication of the case, she may be permitted to file her written statement in the interest of justice and equity.
2.1.
Learned counsel further contends that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and cannot be allowed to thwart real and substantial justice between the parties. According to learned counsel, no prejudice would indeed be caused to respondent-husband, if the revisionist is permitted to file her written statement.
ASHISH 2023.02.14 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
3.
Given the nature of order being passed, there is no necessity to issue notice to respondent herein (husband), as no prejudice would be caused to him. Notice to respondent herein is thus dispensed with. 4.
I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and gone through the case file.
5.
I am of the view that provisions contained in Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, ordinarily ought to be adhered to, but learned Trial Court could have permitted to file written statement in the instant case. Provisions contained in Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, ibid, have been held to be directory in nature by the Supreme Court in Salem Bar Association Vs. UOI, 2005(6) SCC 344. Trial Courts should not, therefore, be too harsh to strike off the defence of the respondent/defendant, at very early stage.
6.
Learned counsel for revisionist undertakes to file written statement on or before the next adjourned date.
7.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to revisionist for filing the written statement. To that extent, the impugned order is modified and the revision petition is allowed.
*#' )***
/,0 ,1 . 1 / 2 3 425 1 (*3 425 ASHISH 2023.02.14 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment