The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Order VIII CPC provide a complete timeline and scheme for filing the written statement, and the court emphasized the consequences of non-filing of the written statement within the prescribed time.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been held through video conferencing.

2. Advance copy of this petition has been served. None appears for the Respondents. A very short issue has been raised.

3. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28th January, 2020 by which the ld. Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1, and granted 30 days'' time for filing the written statement. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:

"In the present application under Order VII rule 11, read with section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 CPC, defendant no.1 has raised the objection that the present suit is not maintainable as the same has been barred under section 7 of The Family Courts Act. It is stated that as the present dispute is pertaining to the matrimonial dispute that is why the same is barred under the jurisdiction of this Court and the present court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.

In the reply filed by the plaintiff to the said application, it is clarified that the present suit is pertaining to the selfacquired property of parents in law and the same is not barred under section 7 of the Family Court Act

In view of the whole facts and circumstances of the present case, it is very much clear that plaintiff is the father of defendant no.2 and defendant no. 1 is the daughter in law of plaintiff against whom plaintiff is seeking the relief of permanent injunction but the same is not pertaining to a matrimonial dispute between husband and wife and with respect to matrimonial dispute between the parties. Therefore, it is hereby concluded that the suit is not barred under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act and the same can be adjudicated upon by the present court. Therefore, application at hand stands dismissed.

At an oral request of defendant no.1 an opportunity is granted to her to file a written statement within thirty days from today with the direction to supply an advance copy of the same to opposite party at least fifteen days prior to the next date of hearing"

4. The grievance of the ld. counsel for the Petitioner, who is the Plaintiff in the suit, is that the suit was filed in September, 2017 and though the Respondents/Defendants had entered appearance, they chose not to file the written statement till the decision in the application under Order 7 Rule 11.

5. Mr. Prashant Diwan, ld. counsel for the Petitioner, submits that as per the settled legal position, the pendency of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC would not automatically grant an extension for filing the written statement. He relies upon the judgment in Avnija Ahluwalia (minor) v. Bikramjit Ahluwalia and Ors., (2016) 8 AD(Del) 596 .

6. Further, it is submitted by Mr. Diwan, ld. counsel, that from 28th January, 2020, i.e the date of the impugned order, till date, the written statement has not been filed. He further submits that on the last date before the Sr. Civil Judge, i.e., on 10th August, 2020, the matter was taken up through video conferencing, however, the written statement has not been filed yet. The next date in the matter is 26th October, 2020. It is also submitted by Mr. Diwan that the written statement was not filed even within 30 days, as granted by the Trial Court in the impugned order. In this case, the Court would have to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

7. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the time for filing of the written statement has been granted without taking into consideration the provisions of Order VIII CPC. Under the provisions of Order VIII CPC, non-filing of the written statement within time entails consequences in law. The pendency of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, does not operate as an automatic stay upon filing of the written statement. In fact, the settled legal position is that the written statement should be filed irrespective of an applicati