O R D E R

% 05.09.2023 The matter has been put up on an office note due to some typographical errors which had crept in the Judgment dated 21.08.2023, wherein, in paragraph 19, 20 and 21, inadvertently the word ‘Division Bench’ in place of ‘Co-ordinate Bench’ has been typed out. Rectifying the said errors, the judgment dated 21.08.2023 shall now be read as under:-

“O.A. 37/2022

1. Defendant No. 1 has preferred the captioned chamber appeal under Chapter II Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter ‘the DHC Rules’) read with Section 151 CPC against order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the Joint Registrar in I.A. 14014/2022 filed by the plaintiff, thereby closing the right of defendant No.1 to file the written statement.

2. Before delving into the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties, the factual matrix of the case is noted. The plaintiff, claiming himself to be a former secretary of defendant No.1, has preferred the present suit for declaration, specific performance, mandatory injunction, recovery, permanent injunction and damages.

3. The suit came to be listed for the first time on 25.03.2022, when summons were directed to be issued to the defendants. On the said date, defendant No.1, on advance notice, was duly represented through its counsel, who accepted the summons and sought leave to file written statement. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings, admission/denial of the documents and marking of exhibits on 04.05.2022. Simultaneously, notice in the accompanying application being I.A. 4679/2022, filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, was also issued. The notice of the application was accepted by the learned counsel for defendant No.1, who sought time to file reply.

4. The suit, as directed, was listed before the Joint Registrar on 04.05.2022, when defendant No.1 remained unrepresented. On the next date of hearing i.e., 31.05.2022, learned counsel for the defendant No.1 stated that pursuant to an order dated 01.04.2022, in the proceedings pending before NCLT, New Delhi, 15 persons have been nominated by the Central Govt., to manage the affairs of defendant No.1. It was also informed that the nominated members had not yet taken charge.

5. The suit next came to be listed before Joint Registrar on 12.07.2022, when it was observed that no written statement had been filed by defendant No.1. On the next date of hearing i.e., 01.09.2022, an application preferred by the plaintiff under Order VIII Rules 1 and 10 CPC, was listed before the Joint Registrar, stating that the statutory time period of 120 days for filing written statement was already over. Though learned counsel for defendant No.1 opposed the application and informed that the written statement, along with application for condonation of delay stood filed on 24.08.2022, the impugned order was passed and right of defendant No.1 to file written statement was closed.

6. Calling into question the legality and correctness of the impugned order, defendant No.1 contended that not only was the order passed against the mandate of Rule 4 of Chapter VII; Rules 14 and 16 of Chapter I of the DHC Rules, but also by incorrectly recording that written statement and application for condonation of delay were not on record. It is stated that defects were notified in written statement on 29.08.2022, which were rectified and the same was re-filed on 30.08.2022. It is further stated that defects were notified in the condonation application on 25.08.2022, 30.08.2022 and 31.08.2022.

7. Learned counsel for defendant No.1 has referred to proviso 2 of Rule 1, Order VIII of CPC, while arguing that the written statement was filed after delay of 120 days beyond the statutory limit of 30 days, beginning from 26.03.2022. The delay was sought to be explained by stating that the new General Committee, after taking control, received summons on 06.04.2022 and 07.04.2022, and thereafter became aware of the present su