Delay in filing Written Statements beyond stipulated period cannot be condoned under current law.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J.

1. The present Appeals are filed against the common Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23.01.2025 in O.A. No. 226/2024 & O.A. No. 227/2024 in CS (OS) No. 655/2017.

2. By the said judgment, the learned Single Judge adjudicated upon the aspect of whether the delay in filing the Written Statement beyond the maximum prescribed period of 120 days, as stipulated under Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, [High Court Rules.], can be condoned. The said judgment was rendered in challenges raised by the Appellants herein before the learned Single Judge from the reasoned order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the learned Joint Registrar.

3. Since the learned counsel for the Appellant has contended that the issue raised herein is primarily a question of law, this Court does not deem it necessary to set out the factual matrix of the entire dispute, except to the extent relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the present lis.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant would rely upon the following points in support of the challenge mounted herein.

A. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the entire suit, instituted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is malafide and a mere camouflage. He contends that there exists a chequered history between the parties herein and considering the nature of the dispute, the institution of the suit itself lacks bonafides.

B. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the aspects relating to the historical background, are extremely essential for the purpose of adjudicating the issues raised in the suit and, therefore, equity would demand that the Appellants herein be permitted to set out its defence, and that the closure of the same through the impugned judgment would result in undue prejudice and is not in the interest of fair and just adjudication. In support of this contention, the learned Senior Counsel relies upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Esha Gupta v. Rohit Vig , [2020 SCC OnLine Del 2702.], and particularly paragraphs 7, 8 and 10 which are set forth as follows:

“7. It must be noticed at this stage that the Appellant has also referred to certain instructions given by her to her lawyers regarding the preparation of the written statement. She has inter alia averred that “due to one inadvertent reason or the other, the written statement could not be filed.” However, the Court does not wish to examine this aspect of the matter but would confine itself to examining whether the reasons given by the Appellant/Defendant herein are sufficient for the Court to condone the delay.

8. What weighs with the Court in addition to the documents produced adduced and submissions made, is that her proposed written statement is ready. A copy thereof has been enclosed as Annexure A-16 to the present appeal. In other words, if the present appeal was to be allowed, the Appellant/Defendant is in a position to file her written statement, as she proposes, straightaway, without seeking any further time. The second factor that weighs with the Court is that given the nature of the suit, it would be in fact be in the interest of the Plaintiff to know as to what the stand of the Defendant is, rather than a situation where there is no written statement at all. Thirdly, in the circumstances, the impugned order was passed just five days after the expiry of the deadline to file the written statement, and before the filing of the present appeal, i.e. by 19^th December, 2019, the Appellant/Defendant was ready with the proposed written statement. Therefore, the bonafides of the Appellant/Defendant, as far as her willingness to file the written statement is concerned, are evident. The Court, therefore, refrains from expressing any opinion on the truthfulness or otherwise of the other assertions of the Appellant.

***

10. In the peculiar facts referred to above, and without expressing a