The Delhi High Court's rules for filing written statements are mandatory, and non-compliance results in costs, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural timelines.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant under Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act , 1966 read with Section 104 and Order XLVIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 challenging the impugned order dated 10th January, 2023, passed by the ld. Single Judge. By the impugned order, the ld. Single Judge permitted the written statement of the Defendant/Respondent to be taken on record, subject to payment of Rs. 1 lakh as costs to the Plaintiff/Appellant.

Background

3. The suit from which the present appeal emanates is one for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,95,38,338/- filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant against the Defendants/Respondents. The brief facts of the case are that on 30th October, 2021 an advance copy of the plaint was served to the Defendant/Respondent, and on 26th November, 2021 summons were issued to the Defendant/Respondent by the ld. Single Judge. On 11th March, 2022 the Plaintiff/Appellant was directed to file certain documents including certain bills/vouchers, and the Defendant/Respondent was directed to file the written statement after four weeks from supply of the said documents. As per the Plaintiff/Appellant the documents in terms of the order dated 11th March, 2022 were filed on 25th March, 2022. The order of the Joint Registrar dated 11th March 2022, reads:

“2. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that he shall be filing vakalatnama on behalf of the defendants during the course of the day. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiffs have moved an application under Order VII Rule 1 CPC seeking exemption from filing certain bills/vouchers etc. which was allowed by the Hon’ble Court however till date those documents have not been placed on record neither copy has been supplied to the defendants.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that needful shall be done within two weeks.

4. Let the needful be done accordingly with advance copy to the defendants after which the defendants may file written statement, reply to the interim application and affidavit of admission/denial within four weeks.”

4. The Plaintiff/Appellant preferred an application under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, and notice was issued in the said application on 26th July, 2022. It is stated that during pendency of the aforesaid application, on 15th September, 2022, the Plaintiff/Appellant in response to the ld. Joint Registrar’s query submitted that he would obtain instructions regarding filing of additional documents. The ld. Joint Registrar also granted the Defendant/Respondent additional time of four weeks from the supply of said documents for inter alia filing its written statement. The relevant portions of the order dated 15th September, 2022 are reproduced:

“5. Learned counsel for plaintiff has been asked whether some more documents are required to be filed in terms of application u/O VII Rule 1 CPC as referred in order dated 11.03.2022 to which he has stated that he will have to take instructions from his client.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for plaintiff that he will take appropriate steps within two weeks.

7. Let the advance copy of the said documents if any, be supplied to the defendants after which the defendants may file written statement, reply to interim application and affidavit of admission/ denial within 4 weeks.”

5. Thereafter, on 6th October, 2022, it is stated that the Plaintiff/Appellant submitted before the ld. Joint Registrar that no further documents were to be filed in terms of the order dated 11th March, 2022. The Defendant/Respondent was granted further time of two weeks for filing its written statement along with affidavit of admission and denial. The relevant portions of the order dated 6th October, 2022 are reproduced:

“5. Heard. Perusal of previous order dated 15.09.2022 would reflect that a query was put to Ld. Counsel appearing on