Delhi High Court Kicks Contentious WS Filing Debate to Larger Bench: Strict Rule or Flexible Fix?

In a pivotal move to resolve brewing confusion in civil litigation, the Delhi High Court has referred a recurring procedural showdown to a larger bench. Justice Subramonium Prasad, in VK Sood PIL JV v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. (O.A. 43/2023 in CS(OS) 330/2022), flagged irreconcilable rulings from coordinate benches on whether a defendant's written statement (WS), filed within the 120-day cap under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018—but missing the mandatory affidavit of admission/denial of documents—counts as legally void ( non-est ) or merely a fixable glitch.

The court first condoned a delay in the defendants' chamber appeal via I.A. 7780/2023, then dove into the heart of the dispute, underscoring how this issue "is arising frequently" and demands urgent clarity for procedural harmony.

Roots of the Row: A Timeline of Missed Deadlines and Registry Rejections

The saga began when plaintiff VK Sood PIL JV—a joint venture—sued South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) and others in a commercial suit. Defendants entered appearance on May 31, 2022, securing time to file their WS. They tendered it on September 25, 2022—three days shy of the 120-day maximum under Rules 2-4, Chapter VII—but sans the required affidavit verifying plaintiff's 472 documents.

Registry flagged the defect, and the affidavit arrived only on December 14, 2022, post-deadline. Joint Registrar rejected the WS on March 17, 2023, prompting SDMC's appeal. Defendants blamed voluminous records, internal approvals as a public body, and MCD elections for the slip, seeking condonation.

Plaintiff Strikes Hard: No Affidavit, No WS—Rules Demand Perfection

VK Sood's counsel argued the WS is incomplete without the affidavit, per Rule 3's ironclad mandate: "Alongwith the written statement, defendant shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of documents filed by the plaintiff, without which the written statement shall not be taken on record ." They invoked Unilin Beheer B.V. v. Balaji Action Buildwell (2019 SCC OnLine Del 12566), where a coordinate bench deemed such filings non-est , warning that leniency guts the "shall" and the rules' expedition goal. Even as a "defect," they claimed, Rule 3 ties curing to 30 days—long expired here.

Defendants Push Back: Timely Filing Trumps Technical Slip, Precedents Agree

SDMC countered that the WS hit the registry timely on September 25, making the affidavit omission a curable defect, not erasure. They leaned on fresher rulings: COSCO International Pvt. Ltd. v. Jagat Singh Dugar (2022 SCC OnLine Del 1113), Neeraj Ahuja v. AIPIL Zorro Pvt. Ltd. (2024 SCC OnLine Del 3479), and Shefali Kohli v. Neena Chatrath (2024 SCC OnLine Del 2752). These viewed WS-minus-affidavit as valid if cured promptly post-objection, distinguishing filing from acceptance, and noting plaintiff's rejoinder waived gripes. Public entity hurdles justified delay, they urged.

Clash of Coordinate Titans: Parsing "Shall" in the Shadow of Precedent

Justice Prasad dissected the rift. Unilin 's strict line: No affidavit means no WS on record and deemed admission of documents, aligning with CPC Order VIII Rule 10 for swift decrees—honoring Rules' anti-delay overhaul.

Yet COSCO et al. carved exceptions: WS within 120 days survives as a defect curable in 30 days per Chapter IV Rule 3; non-simultaneous filing isn't non-est . Prasad sided provisionally with Unilin , invoking statutory sanctity— "permitting Written Statement without an Affidavit... would render the word 'shall' ... otiose " —and Supreme Court lore on literal interpretation ( Ramana Dayaram Shetty ). Verbs like "shall" signal mandates, he noted, citing Muskan Enterprises v. State of Punjab .

But judicial decorum prevailed: Divergent single-judge views demand larger bench arbitration ( Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish ). Echoing news reports, Prasad stressed the issue's frequency: "An authoritative pronouncement is necessary so that there is uniformity."

Key Observations

"Rule 3 mandates that along with the Written Statement, the Defendant shall also file an Affidavit of admission/denial of documents without which the written statement shall not be taken on record ."

"Permitting Written Statement without an Affidavit of admission/denial of documents would render the word 'shall' in Rule 3 ... as otiose ."

"In view of the divergent views expressed by co-ordinate Benches of this Court on the issue in question... this Court considers it appropriate to refer the present issue for consideration by a Larger Bench."

Larger Bench Bound: Remand or Rejection Awaits

The court framed the question crisply: Does a timely WS lacking affidavit render it non-est , or is absence a curable defect allowing later compliance? Pending larger bench verdict—if curable, back to Joint Registrar for delay scrutiny; if not, rejection stands.

This referral promises to standardize Original Side practice, curbing WS ping-pong and expediting suits where documents dominate. As reports note, it's "expedient that the same is put to rest on an urgent basis," potentially reshaping Delhi's civil docket.