Procedural defects and irregularities in pleadings should not automatically lead to dismissal or rejection, and should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or cause injustice. The court emphasized the need for proper compliance with legal requirements and granted the Defendant No. 1 an opportunity to rectify the defects.

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

1. The Plaintiffs have filed the Chamber Appeal impugning the order dated 06.09.2013 of the Joint Registrar. The Joint Registrar by the order of 06.09.2013 allowed the application of the Defendant No. 1 for condonation of delay of 129 days in filing the Written Statement. The Joint Registrar by the impugned order has held that though the Defendant could have filed the Written Statement within reasonable time after service but consumption of some time in communication overseas cannot be ruled out. He has further held that the Defendant No. 1 cannot claim that the entire delay has been occasioned on account of loss in transaction or for want of instructions/details and as such, some amount of neglect is attributable to the Defendant. He has, however, held that in the larger interest, considering the nature of lis, the stakes involved and the stage of proceedings, the prejudice caused to the Plaintiff could be compensated in terms of the costs. The delay has accordingly been condoned and the Written Statement has been directed to be taken on record. The Plaintiffs have impugned the condonation of delay and taking on record of the Written Statement.

2. The contention of the Plaintiff is that the facts of the present case are so glaring that even if the provisions of Order 8 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure were to be liberally construed, the Defendant No. 1 is not entitled to condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement and for exercise of discretion in her favour. As per the Plaintiffs the Written Statement filed is defective and is no Written Statement in the eyes of law and the application seeking condonation of delay cannot be construed as an application filed by or on behalf of the said Defendant.

3. The Plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration and injunction against three Defendants. For the purposes of condonation of delay, the merits of the case of the Plaintiffs is not germane, what is relevant is the service of the summons and the filing of the Written Statement and the purported application seeking condonation of delay by the Defendant No. 1.

4. Summons in the suit were directed to be issued on 14.03.2012. On 03.05.2012, an advocate entered appearance on behalf of the Defendant No. 1 and sought time to file the Written Statement. The Court permitted the Written Statement to be filed within six weeks. The matter thereafter was listed on 22.05.2012, 18.07.2012, 30.07.2012, 07.08.2012 and 27.08.2012, when the advocate for the Defendant No. 1 appeared. However, no Written Statement was filed. On failure of the Defendant No. 1 to file the Written Statement, the Plaintiffs on 08.08.2012, filed IA No.15833/2012 (under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC). As the advocate for the Plaintiffs could not trace out the said application, a fresh application being IA 16905/2012 (under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC) was filed on 05.09.2012.

5. Consequent to the filing of the application under Order VIII Rule 10 by the Plaintiffs, an application being IA 20039/2012 (under Order VII Rules 10 & 11) was filed on behalf of the Defendant No. 1. An application being IA 20042/2012 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4) dated 30.10.2012 on behalf of the Defendant No. 1 was also filed on 31.10.2012. The Written Statement dated 30.10.2012 was filed on 31.10.2012. Since the Written Statement was beyond time, an application being IA 8937/2013 dated 11.04.2013 was filed on behalf of the Defendant No. 1 seeking condonation of delay of 129 days in filing the Written Statement. The Plaintiffs objected to the condonation of delay.

6. The Joint Registrar by the impugned order noticed that the Defendant No. 1 had sought condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement on the ground that the Defendant No. 1 was currently residing in New York and it required substantive time for getting details/instructions and, in view of the fact that the Written Statement and affidavit sent to her advocate from USA were lost in transaction. She