Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors – Appellant
Versus
Dr Shambhuji & Ors - Respondents
CM(M) 1529 of 2018 and CM Nos.52241 of 2018 and 53538 of 2022, CM(M) 1522 of 2018 and CM 52071 of 2018 and 53329 of 2022
Decided on : 11-01-2023
Delay in Filing Written Statement - Civil Procedure Code - The court allowed the written statements to be taken on record subject to the payment of reasonable costs by the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of written statements by the trial court due to a delay of almost 4 years in filing them.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered that the delay in filing the written statements should not have been counted towards the time spent in pursuing legal remedies. Both parties consented to the written statements being taken on record subject to the payment of reasonable costs by the petitioners.
Issues: Delay in filing written statements, refusal by trial court, consent of parties, imposition of costs
Ratio Decidendi: The court opined that the delay in filing the written statements should not include the time spent in pursuing legal remedies. It also emphasized the need to decide the case on its merits and avoid wasting time on avoidable proceedings.
Final Decision: The court directed the trial court to take the written statements on record in both suits, subject to the payment of Rs.20,000/- as costs by each of the petitioners to the respondent within two weeks.
JUDGMENT :
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. With the consent of parties, present petition is taken up for disposal today.
2. Petitioner challenges the order dated 13.11.2018 of the learned Trial Court whereby the written statements filed by Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 who are Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 6 (before the learned Trial Court) in CM (M) No.1522/2018 and Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 7 (before the learned Trial Court) in CM(M) 1529/2018 were rejected and not permitted to be taken on record.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Trial Court refused it on the ground that there was a delay of almost 4 years in filing of the written statement and thus, there was no reason for it to condone the delay and therefore, rejected the request and denied the permission to take on record the written statement.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) which was taken up right uptil the Supreme Court and time was spent in pursing the legal remedies available to it. She further submits that availment of legal remedies in respect of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC ought not to have been counted towards delay in filing the written statement.
5. Respondent No.1, who appears in person, submits that mere filing of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC does not act like a carte blanche for the Petitioner to not have filed their written statement for which specific time is prescribed in the Civil Procedure Code. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered opinion that lis ought to be decided on merits. Precious time of the parties and the Courts are wasted on such avoidable proceedings. Moreover, in the present case, Respondent in person, also does not seriously object if one chance is given to the Petitioners.
6. Therefore, both the parties have consented that written statements be directed to be taken on record subject to imposition of reasonable costs imposed upon the Petitioners.
7. Accordingly, subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- as costs by each of the Petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 to the Respondent, within two weeks from today, the Trial Court shall take the written statements on record in respect of both the suits, viz. CS No. 59836 of 2016 and CS No. 59837 of 2016 and proceed in accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the petitions and the applications filed herewith are disposed of.
9. The date of 08.08.2023 already fixed in CM(M) 1529/2018 stands cancelled.
The delay in filing written statements should not include the time spent in pursuing legal remedies, and the court may allow written statements to be taken on record subject to the payment of reasona....
Trial Courts should consider a lenient view for completion of pleadings, especially regarding the filing of written statements beyond the stipulated period, as reiterated by the Supreme Court in prev....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the courts to permit defendants to file their written statements and the need to decide suits on merits rather than technicali....
The main legal point established is that the right to file a written statement in a civil suit may extend beyond the prescribed period, as supported by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and relevant ....
The time of 90 days prescribed for filing written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC in an ordinary suit is directory and not mandatory. The court has the discretion to grant further time to th....
In ordinary civil suits, the merits of the case should be considered and technicalities should not come in the way of the parties. Delay in filing written statements can be compensated with costs.
The court ruled that a party's right to file a written statement should not be denied due to delay, provided costs are imposed, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial.
Delay in filing a written statement can be condoned when within the overall condonable limits, prioritizing justice over technicalities.
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, permittin....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
