The interpretation of procedural rules regarding the filing of written statements and the discretion of the court to permit filing beyond the stipulated period based on sufficient cause.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 03.09.2022 passed by the District Judge, North-East District, Kardardooma Courts, Delhi in civil suit bearing no. 199/2021, titled as Bijay Pal Singh Yadav v. Ram Pal Sharma (`Trial Court') whereby the application filed by the Petitioner under Order VIII Rule 1 and 10 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (`CPC') read with Section 148 and 151 CPC for condonation of delay in filing written statement was dismissed by the Trial Court.

2. This Court while issuing notice in this matter had passed the order dated on 20.09.2022 which reads as under:

"3. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails order dated 3rd September 2022 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Courts) (the learned Commercial Court) in CS 199/21 (Bijay Pal Singh Yadav v. Ram Pal Sharma), whereby the learned ADJ has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner, as the defendant in the said suit, under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, for condonation of delay in filing written statement.

4. Summons in the suit were served on the petitioner on 17th March 2022, and the matter was renotified for 21st March 2022. On 21st March 2022, written statement was directed to be filed by the defendant within the stipulated period, and the matter was adjourned to 8th July 2022. This, therefore, was the first opportunity for filing of written statement which was granted by the learned Trial Court.

5. On 7th July 2022, CS 199/21 was transferred to the Court of the learned District Judge (Commercial Courts), who has come to pass the impugned order dated 3rd September 2022. This transfer was effected in terms of Administrative Order dated 5th December 2019 issued by this Court, which allowed civil non-commercial suits to be listed before the learned Commercial Court where the number of matters before the learned Commercial Court were few.

6. On account of the aforesaid transfer, the petitioner submits that, though the written statement in response to the suit, was ready for filing on 8th July 2022, it could not be filed.

7. The written statement came to be filed on 3rd August 2022 alongwith an application under Order VIII Rule 1 and Rule 10 of the CPC, seeking condonation of the delay in filing the written statement.

8. The impugned order rejects the application.

9. In rejecting the application, the learned ADJ has also observed that the written statement was filed beyond the maximum condonable period under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC.

10. That the maximum period of 120 days envisaged by Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is not mandatory and that, if sufficient cause is made out, the Court can permit the written statement to be taken on record even beyond the said period is no longer res integra, as it stands settled by the judgments of the Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanku and Rani Kusum v. Kanchan Devi.

11. In view of the fact that the petitioner had presented the written statement for filing on 3rd August 2022, issue notice, returnable on 9th March 2023.

12. Notice be served on the respondent by all modes including dasti as well as through learned Counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent before the court below.

13. Reply, if any, be filed within four weeks, with advance copy to learned Counsel for the petitioner who may file rejoinder thereto, if any, before the next date of hearing.

14. Till the next date of hearing, further proceedings in CS 199/21 shall remain stayed."

3. The learned counsel for the Respondent enters appearance. She states that since Respondent is the original plaintiff before the Trial court; and in order to seek an expeditious disposal of the suit on merits, she has no objection if the order is set aside and written statement of the Petitioner is taken on record subject to Petitioner paying legal cost to the Respondent.

4. In response, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that he has no objection