Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KSHETARPAL, HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, JJ.
Paramjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
Hardaman Singh Anand & Ors. – Respondents
FAO(OS) 77 of 2025
Decided On : 29-07-2025
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The appeal concerns the calculation of limitation periods for filing replications after written statements in a civil suit, specifically whether court vacations should be excluded from the limitation period (!) (!) .
The relevant rules specify that the period for filing a replication is 30 days, with an extension of up to 15 days available for exceptional and unavoidable reasons, provided costs are paid (!) (!) .
The rules also clarify that the calculation of days excludes the day on which the period begins and considers whether the last day falls on a court holiday or closure, in which case the period is extended to the next working day (!) (!) .
The appellant argued that court vacations should be excluded from the limitation period, meaning that if the last day of the period fell during a vacation, the period should be extended until the court reopens (!) (!) .
The respondents contended that the limitation period is to be calculated based on the functioning of the court registry, which remains open for filings during vacations, and that the period should not be extended solely because the court judges are not sitting (!) (!) .
The court analyzed the rules and relevant legal principles, concluding that the registry's operational status during vacations is crucial. The period of limitation does not automatically get extended during court vacations if the registry remains open for filings (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the limitation period is governed by the statutory provisions, which specify that limitation expires on the last day of the period unless it falls on a day when the court is closed, in which case it is extended to the next working day when the registry is operational (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the exclusion of days during vacations applies only to days when the court registry is closed, not merely when judicial sittings are not held. The registry's operational status during vacations is the determining factor (!) (!) .
The order rejected the appellant’s contention that the entire vacation period should be excluded, affirming that limitation periods are to be calculated harmoniously with the rules and statutory provisions, discouraging indolence and ensuring procedural discipline (!) (!) .
The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the delay in filing the replications was not justified by the vacation period and that the applications for condonation of delay were rightly rejected (!) (!) .
Would you like a concise summary or specific advice based on these key points?
JUDGMENT :
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [CPC] read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, impugns the Order dated 06.05.2025, [Impugned Order] passed by the Signature Not Verified learned Single Judge of this Court in CS(OS) 166/2023 titled as Paramjit Singh vs. Hardaman Singh & Ors.
2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by Mr. Prashant Mehta, Advocate on behalf of Respondent Nos.1(A), 2 & 3, Mr. Siddharth A., Advocate on behalf of Respondent No.2, Mr. Aviral Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Respondent No.4 and Mr. Dhiraj Sachdeva, Advocate on behalf of Respondent Nos.5 & 6.
3. The short question that arises in the instant appeal relates to the time period within which the replications on behalf of the Plaintiff/Appellant herein, to the written statements on behalf of Defendant/Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3; and Defendant/Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had to be filed.
4. The relevant facts which led up to the filing of this appeal are stated hereinbelow :
A. A civil suit was filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant herein seeking declaration of the Appellant’s share in the estate in question, for rendition of bank accounts and permanent and mandatory injunction.
B. On 07.03.2023, notice was issued in the suit. The counsel for Defendant/Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the counsel for Defendant/Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, entered appearance.
C. Vide Order dated 09.05.2023, written statement on behalf of Defendant/Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was taken on record and a period of four weeks was given to the Appellant to file replication. The written statement on behalf of Defendant/Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was taken on record vide Order dated 15.05.2023.
D. On 17.07.2023, the Appellant/Plaintiff filed replication to both above-mentioned written statements along with two applications; the first application bearing I. A. No. 15437 of 2023 was filed under Section 151 of the CPC for condonation of delay of 16 days in filing of Replication to the written statement of Defendant/Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the second application bearing I.A. No. 15441 of 2023 was filed under Section 151 of the CPC for condonation of delay of 22 days in filing of Replication to the written statement of Defendant/Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
E. The grounds for delay in filing the two replications, as stated in both applications, are similar. The Appellant submitted that delay was due to the summer vacation of the Court and the unavailability of his counsel. Further, it was submitted that the Appellant is a senior citizen and has multiple age-related ailments.
F. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned Order dismissed both the applications.
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant would first refer to Rule 5, Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, [Rules, 2018] which reads as follows:
“5. Replication.- The replication, if any, shall be filed within 30 days of receipt of the written statement. If the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by sufficient cause for exceptional and unavoidable reasons in filing the replication within 30 days, it may extend the time for filing the same by a further period not exceeding 15 days but not thereafter. For such extension, the plaintiff shall be burdened with costs, as deemed appropriate. The replication shall not be taken on record, unless such costs have been paid/ deposited. In case no replication is filed within the extended time also, the Registrar shall forthwith place the matter for appropriate orders before the Court. An advance copy of the replication together with legible copies of all documents in possession and power of plaintiff, that it seeks to file along with the replication, shall be served on the defendant and the replication together with the said documents shall not be accepted unless it contains an endorsement of service signed by the defendant/ his Advocate.”
6. Learned counsel for
Court vacations do not suspend limitation periods, and strict adherence to filing timelines as set in the Delhi High Court Rules is mandatory.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
