The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering all relevant documents, particularly those supporting allegations of negligence, in the appellate process.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. The petitioners challenge the order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the First Appellate Court (RCT) in RCT No.04/2022 titled `Sh. Anil Kumar Kuchhal & Anr. Vs. Sh. Pradyuman Kumar Aggarwal & Anr.' whereby the first appeal against the order dated 20.11.2021 passed by the ARC whereby an application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, 1908 seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement was dismissed.

2. Mr. Dalal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in a long line of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the right of the defendant to file the written statement even beyond the prescribed period of 30 days and extended period of 90 days had been condoned, though the same was subject to exemplary costs. Learned counsel also refers to the judgment in Kailash vs. Nankhu reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480, additionally by Division Bench of this Court in Jamaluddin vs. Nawabuddin & Ors. Neutral Citation Number-2023/DHC/001211

3. In the present petition, Mr. Dalal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the same counsel had been appearing for and on behalf of petitioner in respect of the litigation right from the time notices under Order 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, were issued by the respondent/plaintiff, continued to appear for the petitioner till the time the application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement was dismissed.

4. Learned senior counsel also submits that the same counsel had also appeared and resisted the permission sought under the Slum Areas Act, 1956, which was allowed. Mr. Dalal submits that he has not only appeared before the competent authority under Slum Areas Act, but also filed an appeal there against.

5. On that basis Mr. Dalal, learned senior counsel submits that the trust between the petitioner upon his counsel was complete and absolute and there was no reason to doubt that the then counsel would not file the written statement within the stipulated period.

6. In respect of order dated 28.02.2020, whereby the learned ARC had closed the right of filing the written statement, learned senior counsel submits that a perusal of the said order does not show any explicit disentitlement from filing the written statement. According to Mr. Dalal, at worst, the period of 30 days was over which was noted in the order dated 28.02.2020, however, there was no disentitlement otherwise as per law as extended period of 90 days was still available.

7. Mr. Dalal submits that the petitioner challenged the order dated 20.11.2021 passed by the ARC dismissing the application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC by way of the aforesaid appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal.

8. Mr. Dalal submits that along with the said appeal, documents pertaining to the complaint filed by the petitioner against the former counsel before the Bar Council of Delhi and other relatable documents were also filed, however, were not considered. Learned senior counsel submits that the non-consideration of the reasons of not having filed the written statement in time was fatal to the case of the petitioner. Moreover, learned senior counsel submits that the First Appellate Court in a perfunctory manner had dismissed the submission that it was due to the negligence of the counsel that the written statement was not filed in time.

9. Learned senior counsel submits that in the absence of consideration of those documents gross injustice has occurred and this Court ought to interfere in the impugned order.

10. Learned senior counsel also relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in `Rafiq and Another Vs. Munshi Lal and Another' (1981) 2 SCC 788 as also the judgment of `Smt. Lachi Tewari & Ors. Vs. Director of Land Records & Ors.' reported in 1984 (Supp) SCC 431 to submit that the negligence of the counsel ought not to disentitle the parties of t