Delay in filing the written statement can be condoned in deserving cases, subject to compensatory costs, and disputes should be resolved on merits rather than technicalities.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. Petitioner challenges the order dated 18.08.2022 in CS DJ 380/20 titled as "Urvashi Suri vs. Randhir Singh" whereby the learned Trial Court had closed the right of the defendant to file his written statement on the ground that despite repeated opportunities having been provided, the defendant did not avail of the same and has delayed such filing and hence, no indulgence ought to have been shown on him.

2. Mr. Surender, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that the petitioner/defendant is a wheelchair bound person and has multiple medical issues. In support thereto, the medical history of the petitioner/defendant showing him to be a person who is suffering from multiple orthopedic ailments, are filed on the record of this Court.

3. Learned counsel submits that it was because this reason that despite having appeared a number of times and despite having engaged the counsel from the Legal Aid Cell at the District Courts, the written statement could not be filed in time. Learned counsel also submits that the counsel also did not co-operate, leading to the written statement not being filed and culminating in the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel submits that since the matter pertains to ordinary civil suit, it is trite that in such cases and in deserving situations, the Court can exercise its jurisdiction to condone the delay even beyond the stipulated period of time.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the respondent/plaintiff is a 74 years old lady and has not been paid the rent of the subject suit premise from the last almost four years and has been suffering on that account.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the orders sheets reflect that the petitioner/defendant has not acted within time and has been absolutely negligent, and that the impugned order was passed after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant.

7. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order itself reflects that despite not having filed the written statement, only the right to file the written statement was closed and the defence was not struck off.

8. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned order is sustainable in law and does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. This Court has considered the rival submissions as also perused the impugned order as also the other orders placed on record.

10. It is beyond cavil that the Supreme Court and the High Court by a catena of judgments have held in deserving cases that the delay in filing the written statement can be condoned, however, subject to a compensatory costs.

11. The Supreme Court in the judgments of Bharat Kalra vs. Raj Kishan Chabra, reported as 2022 SCC Online SC 613, Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N vs. Union of India, reported as (2005) 6 SCC 344, Kailash vs. Nanhku and Ors., reported as (2005) 4 SCC 480 has held that the disputes ordinarily ought to be resolved on merits rather than on technicalities and, therefore, in situations where the trial has not reached advanced stages, it could be possible for the courts to condone the delay so as to ensure that the pleadings are complete and the disputes are resolved on merits.

12. Learned Division Bench of this Court in Jamaluddin vs. Nawabuddin & Ors., Neutral Citation Number - 2023/DHC/001211, has also considered the similar issues which were raised and condoned the delay, subject to compensatory costs.

13. This Court has also considered the medical reports of the petitioner/defendant, which appeared to have missed the attention and consideration of the learned Trial Court and it appears that the petitioner indeed is a wheelchair bound person and has multiple orthopedic issues which appear to limiting the movements of the petitioner.

14. The petitioner himself is ag