The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time schedule in Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is to be followed as a rule, and departure therefrom would be by way of exception, permitting the condonation of delay in exceptional situations.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

CM APPL. 46572/2021 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

CRP 100/2021 & CM APPL. 46571/2021 (for stay)

3. This is a petition challenging the impugned order dated 4th March, 2021 passed by the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter "trial court") in CS No. 112/2019 titled Samir Kumar Pal v. Annex Die Casting vide which the written statement of the Petitioner/Defendant (hereinafter "Defendant") has been struck off the record by the trial court.

4. The background of the case is that the suit was filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter "Plaintiff") seeking recovery of Rs. 1,21,355/- with pendent lite and future interest @24% per annum till the date of realisation along with cost of the suit. Initially, summons were issued to the defendant in the suit on 24th January 2019 but since the process fee was not filed by the Plaintiff, one more opportunity was granted to the Plaintiff by the trial court vide order dated 20th April, 2019, in the interest of justice for taking steps and file process fee. The Defendant is stated to have been served on 18th May, 2019. However, the defendant did not appear on the next date of hearing, i.e., 29th May, 2019 and last opportunity was granted by the court to the Defendant to appear before the court and file reply. An application for appearance was filed on 4th June 2019 by the Defendant presuming the suit to be under Order XXXVII CPC. On 3rd August 2019 it was clarified by the court that the suit was an ordinary suit for recovery and last opportunity was granted to the Defendant to appear and file the written statement with advance copy to the opposite party for 26th September 2019. Notably, on the said date i.e., 3rd August 2019, though the counsel for the Defendant had entered appearance, his appearance was inadvertently marked on behalf of the SDMC, which was not even a party to the matter. This error was rectified on 26th September, 2019 and matter was adjourned to 21st November, 2019 for taking on record the written statement. On 21st November, 2019 written statement was filed by the Defendant and a copy of the same was supplied to the Plaintiff. Time was also granted to the Plaintiff to file replication to the same. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner was present at that hearing when the WS filed by the Defendant was taken on record. The said order reads as under:

"21.11.2019 CS. No.112/19

Samir Kumar Pal Vs. Annex Die Casting

Present: Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.

Sh. B.K. Jha, Ld. Counsel for defendant.

WS filed on behalf of defendant. Copy of same is supplied.

Replication, if any be filed within 15 days from today.

Put up for framing of issues on 12.12.2019."

5. Thereafter, the matter was listed before the trial Court on 12th December, 2019 and 13th February, 2020. However, no objection was taken by the Plaintiff in respect to the belated filing of the written statement by the Defendant. The objection was taken for the first time by the Plaintiff on 17th September, 2020 that the written statement was filed belatedly when the matter was fixed for the framing of issues. On the basis of this objection, an application was filed by the Plaintiff to take the written statement off the record as the same was not filed within the prescribed time envisaged in Order VIII Rule 1. By that time, the pleadings were completed in the matter. By the impugned order, the Court took the written statement off the record after relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kailash vs. Nankhu (2005) 4 SCC 480 as also the judgment of this Court in Shyam Sunder vs. Shikha Arora CRP No. 63/2020.

6. Counsel for the Defendant submits that the initial misunderstanding was under the impression that the suit was under Order XXXVII and summons for