The main legal point established in the judgment is that time limits for filing written statements are procedural and subject to the court's discretion, with the overarching goal of preventing dilatory tactics and advancing the cause of justice.

( 1 ) THE respondent herein-Union of India has filed a Civil Suit for recovery of rs. 12,47,67,414/- against the appellant, Mr. Chander Shekhar and Samajwadi Janta party (Rashtriya ).

( 2 ) THE civil suit was filed in the year 2000. Written statement to the civil suit was filed by the appellant on 5th March, 2003. Replication to the written statement was filed by the respondent/union of India on 24. 2. 2004 It may be relevant to state here that the Joint Registrar before whom the civil suit was listed, had vide order dated 05. 2. 2003 granted three weeks time to the appellant to file the written statement and two weeks time thereafter to the respondent- plaintiff to file replication. The defendant no. 2 had filed its written statement only after 07. 4. 2003 as the said written statement is verified on the said date as per copy placed on record.

( 3 ) WHEN the suit came up before the learned Single Judge on 03. 8. 2004, an objection was raised by the appellant that the replication cannot be taken on record as it was filed much beyond the period of two weeks granted by the Joint registrar for filing the same vide order dated 05. 2. 2003 and the provision of order VIII Rule 9 read with Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as Code, for short) would apply. The learned Single judge by the impugned order allowed the replication already filed, to be taken on record subject to costs of Rs. 3,000/ -. It was held that the replication, though filed belatedly, interest of justice demands that it should be taken on record so as to give a fair chance to both the parties to plead and contest their claim/case on merits. Learned Single Judge has held that the provisions of order VIII Rule 9 of the Code are not attracted.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED, the appellant has filed the present appeal. A number of objections and contentions have been raised in the present appeal. Reference was made to the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, for short ). Chapter VI, Rule 3 states that ordinarily not more than one extension of time shall be granted to the defendant for filing written statement, provided that a second or further extension may be granted on an application made in writing setting forth sufficient grounds for such extension and supported, if so required by an affidavit. It was submitted that replication is also a written statement or additional written statement in terms of Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code. Reference was made to Order VI Rule 1 of the code, which only refers to pleadings as plaint and written statement. Reliance was placed upon in Sunil and Vasanth Architects and Consulting Engineers and anr. vs. Tata Ceramics Ltd. [air 1999 Kerala 88], Salig Ram and Anr. vs. Shiv shankar and Ors. [air 1971 Punjab 437], Jag Dutta vs. Savitri Devi [air 1977 punjab 68], Mateshwar Dayal vs. Amar Singh [air 1983 Punjab 197] and Moti Ram vs. Baldev Kishan [volume 81 (1979) RLR 69 (Delhi)].

( 5 ) WE are not required to go into the question whether replication to the written statement filed by the appellant should have been permitted and allowed to be filed. It is clear from the impugned order that no such contention and objection was raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. In some of the decisions relied upon by the appellant [sunil and Vasanth Architects and Consulting Engineers vs. Tata Ceremics Ltd. , Salig Ram vs. Shiv Shankar, Jag dutta vs. Savitri Devi, Mateshwar Dayal vs. Amar Singh, Moti Ram vs. Baldev krishan (supra)] it has been held that replication is part of the pleadings even though Order VI Rule 1 of the Code stipulates that pleadings consists of plaint and written statement. These aspects to our mind are entirely irrelevant and immaterial for deciding the present appeal, which is against the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in granting time and taking on record the replication filed by the respondent subject to payment