The procedure is a handmaid to justice, and the court may permit the parties to file the written statement on compensatory costs, as held in relevant judgments and based on the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

CM APPL. 8985/2023 (for exemption)

1. This is an application seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures.

2. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3. Application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 293/2023 & CM APPL. 8984/2023 (Stay)

4. The petitioner challenges the orders dated 23.11.2022 as well as 04.01.2023 passed in 'Dwarka Parshad vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd' passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the right to file the written statement was closed and the defence was ordered to be struck off. Simultaneously, the petitioner was burdened with the costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the respondent/plaintiff.

5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

6. This Court proceeds to dispose of the instant application in accordance with Delhi High Court Circular No. 69/Rules/DHC dated 05.12.2019, which reads as under:

"5. Appearance on the first date of listing:

(a) Where a Civil Miscellaneous (Main) Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed, any opposite party desiring to oppose any of the prayers made in such petition or in any interim application accompanying such petition shall appear personally or through counsel to make submissions as he/she may desire before the Court.

(b) In case any opposite party does not appear before the Court upon advance service of the petition, the Court may not issue any further notice to such opposite party and may pass any order(s) as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

7. Mr. Sharique Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the summons were served upon the petitioner/defendant on 05.09.2022. However, due to the lack of complete set of plaint and annexures thereto, the written statement was not filed. Learned counsel submits that the copy of the plaint as filed before the learned Trial Court, was also containing video CD in respect of some events which had occurred, was not supplied to the petitioner/defendant, which disabled the petitioner from filing written statement on time.

8. Learned counsel further submits that since such vital CD and clear photographs have not supplied, the petitioner was unable to meet the allegations as raised in the suit effectively. This aspect was conveyed by the learned counsel to the learned Predecessor Court on 28.10.2022. However, at that time, the learned Trial Court recused from hearing the matter, and thus, the said submissions were not recorded.

9. Learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court vide impugned order did not consider the said aspect as a genuine reason for not having filed the written statement.

10. Learned counsel submits that this is not a Commercial Suit where the rigors of timelines are strictly to be adhered to.

11. There is no doubt that the petitioners/defendants did not file the written statement within the stipulated time as obtaining from the facts of the record.

12. The judgments of the Supreme Court in 'Kailash vs. Nanhku and Ors', reported as (2005) 4 SCC 480, 'Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N vs. Union of India', reported as (2005) 6 SCC 344 and 'Bharat Kalra vs. Raj Kishan Chabra' reported as 2022 SCC Online SC 613, and the learned Division Bench of this Court in FA(OS) 149/2022 titled Jamaluddin vs. Nawabuddin & Ors." Neutral Citation Number - 2023/DHC/001211, rendered on 15.02.2023 have taken into consideration the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and held that procedure is a handmaid to justice and permitted the parties to file the written statement on compensatory costs.

13. Being bound by the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of the learned Division Bench of this Court, this Court deems it fit that the lapse of the petitioner/defendant in filing its written statement on time can be condon