IMPORTANT POINT
Written Statement – Once appellant had already filed written statement to un-amended plaint in which certain formal issues were raised later on, stand taken by appellant in written statement already filed may be considered.

ORDER :

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved against the order¹[Order dated 17.03.2021] passed by the High Court²[High Court of Delhi at New Delhi], whereby the application seeking condonation of delay in filing written statement was rejected, the appellant is before this Court.

3. In the case in hand, a civil suit³[Civil Suit No. 10 of 2016] was filed by the respondents for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction in the Court of Civil J.⁴[Civil Judge, Dwarka Courts, Delhi]. Notice was issued on 04.07.2016. Amendment was carried out by the respondents in the suit, which was allowed vide order dated 28.11.2017. However, on account of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction with the Civil Judge, the plaint was returned to the respondents under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, vide order dated 16.12.2017 for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction. The parties were directed to appear before the District J.⁵[District and Sessions Judge (SW), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi]. Thereafter, the matter was listed before the Additional District J.⁶[Additional District Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi] on 03.02.2018, who was assigned the same. The appellant filed written statement on 09.07.2018. However, an objection was raised by the respondents, the same being time-barred. An application was filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The same was rejected by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 05.03.2019. The same was upheld by the High Court vide impugned order dated 17.03.2021, which is under challenge in the present appeal.

4. Impugning the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was not much delay in filing the written statement after the date of appearance, i.e. 03.02.2018 in the court of competent jurisdiction. Written statement was filed by the appellant on 09.07.2018. In fact, on account of the objection raised by the respondents, the process has unnecessarily delayed. The written statement already filed before the Additional District Judge be directed to be taken on record.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that seeing the conduct of the petitioner, the Additional District Judge and the High Court have rightly refused permission to the appellant to place the written statement on record. In fact, the appellant had already filed the written statement when the matter was pending before the Court of Civil Judge. During pendency of the matter, entire evidence of the appellant had been recorded and even the Bank (defendant No. 2 in the civil suit) had also led evidence. If the appellant is allowed to file the written statement at this stage, the matter will be delayed unnecessarily.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the arguments raised, in our opinion, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. The written statement filed by the appellant before the court of Civil Judge is stated to be already on record. It is only that the written statement to the amended plaint raising certain formal issues is sought to be filed, which was not filed by the appellant when the matter was taken up by the court of competent jurisdiction after the plaint was returned by the Civil Judge. It was also stated at the bar that during the interregnum, entire evidence of the appellant and the Bank had been concluded. Once the appellant had already filed written statement to the un-amended plaint, in which certain formal issues were raised later on, in our opinion, the stand taken by the appellant in the written statement already filed may be considered and she may be permitted to lead evidence in terms thereof. Entire case will not be re-opened for fresh trial as the stand taken by learned counsel for the respondents is that in the proceedings which had taken place during the interregnum, the appellant had been participating and she had even cross-examined the witnesses.

7. For the