Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 780
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Ravinder Dudeja, J
ANU KAPUR – Appellant
Versus
DURGA PRASAD RAY – Respondent
CM(M) 3778/2024
NAZIA PARVEEN
Procedural defects in filing a written statement can be cured, and litigants have the right to represent themselves or engage counsel without being denied the opportunity to present their case.
Headnote:
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11, Order 8 Rule 1, Order 8 Rule 10, Section 151 - Defamation suit - The trial court closed the right of the petitioner to file a written statement due to procedural defects, including lack of proper Vakalatnama and affidavit - The court found that the written statement was filed in the petitioner's personal capacity and not on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which was not a party to the suit - The court emphasized that mere technical defects in the affidavit could be cured and should not lead to dismissal of the written statement. (Paras 13-16)
(B) Procedural Fairness - The court held that litigants have the right to represent themselves or engage counsel, and procedural defects should not deny them the opportunity to present their case. (Paras 15-16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced a defamation suit filed by the respondent, and the trial court dismissed the written statement due to procedural issues, including the absence of a proper Vakalatnama and the nature of the affidavit submitted.
Findings of Court:
The court set aside the trial court's order, allowing the petitioner to file a proper affidavit and reinstating the written statement, while imposing costs for the delay.
Issues: The main issues were whether the written statement was filed in the petitioner's personal capacity and whether the trial court's dismissal was justified based on procedural defects.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the written statement was validly filed by the petitioner and that procedural defects could be rectified, emphasizing the right of litigants to represent themselves.
Result: The impugned order was set aside, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. respondent has since filed (Para 1) |
| 2. since a very short issue (Para 2) |
| 3. the challenge in the petition (Para 3) |
| 4. shorn of the unnecessary details (Para 4) |
| 5. ms. vasu singh, advocate appeared (Para 5) |
| 6. vide order dated 28.04.2022 (Para 6) |
| 7. in the meanwhile, respondent filed (Para 7) |
| 8. vide order dated 30.08.2024 (Para 8) |
| 9. learned counsel for the petitioner (Para 9) |
| 10. learned counsel further submits (Para 10) |
| 11. it is also submitted that (Para 11) |
| 12. per contra, learned counsel for the respondent (Para 12) |
| 13. having heard the rival submissions (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 17) |
| 14. hence, the impugned order (Para 16) |
ORDER :
1. Respondent has since filed reply to the petition. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not received the copy of the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready to address arguments without relying upon the reply filed.
2. Since a very short issue is involved, with the consent of both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. The challenge in the petition pertains to an order dated 30.09.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge in Civil Suit No. 2786/2021, whereby, written statement filed on 03.05.2022, representing the same to be filed on behalf of the petitioner, was taken off the record and the right of the petitioner to file the written statement was closed.
4. Shorn of the unnecessary details, the brief facts are that respondent filed a suit for damages/compensation for defamation and for permanent injunction against the petitioner. Summons were served to the petitioner on 28.12.2021.
5. Ms. Vasu Singh, Advocate appeared for the petitioner on 15.02.2022. The trial court observed that the Vakalatnama and application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC were filed on behalf of the petitioner via email, and therefore, directed the counsel to file the hard copy of the same.
6. Vide order dated 28.04.2022, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.
7. In the meanwhile, respondent filed an application under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC and the petitioner filed written statement. The court, in its order dated 11.07.2022, took note that in the Vakalatnama filed by the petitioner, it is mentioned that North Delhi Municipal Corporation has appointed Ms. Vasu Singh as counsel to represent the MCD, even though, MCD was not a party to the suit. Petitioner also filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC .
8. Vide order dated 30.08.2024, learned trial court observed that written statement placed on record has not been filed by the petitioner in her personal capacity and also that Ms. Vasu Singh, appearing on behalf of the MCD, did not file separate Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner. The relevant paras of the impugned order are extracted below:-
“Perusal of record reveals that the present suit has been filed only against defendant Dr. Anu Kapoor for damages/compensation for defamation and permanent injunction. The defendant was served by ordinary process on 28.12.2021 and through Whatsapp on 03.01.2022. The present counsel Ms. Vasu Singh appeared on behalf of defendant and she stated to have filed the vakalatnama via email and she was directed to file hard copy of said vakalatnama within 2 days but as it appears from record that there is no vakalatnama filed on behalf of defendant authorizing Ms. Vasu Singh to appear on her behalf on record though Ms. Vasu Singh, Ld. counsel has been appearing since beginning in the present matter. The application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed on behalf of defendant was also dismissed by this court vide order dated 28.04.2022. On 11.07.2022 the WS alongwith certain documents and vakalatnama was filed by the defendant and the said vakalatnama did not bear the signature of the defendant rather it bears the signature of MCD official. Further from the perusal of WS and affidavit dated 18.05.2022 accompanying the said WS which is in the name of defendant she has stated herself to be deposing un
