Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by the original plaintiff challenging an order that allowed the defendant to file a written statement after a delay of eleven years. The original suit dated back to 1996, and the impugned order permitting the filing of the written statement was issued on 17th October 2006. The petitioner contended that the long delay in filing the written statement warranted the High Court's intervention. However, the court noted that the order was discretionary in nature and that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it would not interfere with such orders unless there was an abuse of discretion. Ultimately, the court rejected the petition, affirming the lower court's decision to allow the written statement to be taken on record subject to payment of costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Discretionary Orders - Interference under Article 227 - High Court declined to interfere with a discretionary order allowing the filing of a written statement after a significant delay. The court held that such orders are within the discretion of the lower court and do not warrant interference unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Held that the delay of eleven years does not justify intervention in this case (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should interfere with the discretionary order allowing the filing of a written statement after a long delay.
Final Decision
The High Court rejected the writ petition, affirming the lower court's discretionary order allowing the filing of the written statement subject to payment of costs.
Law Points
- Discretionary orders
- Article 227 of the Constitution
- delay in filing written statements
