Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2913

Page 1 of 5

$~13

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

CRP 52/2023

CHANCHAL GOEL & ANR.

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr.

Arun

Khatri

and

Mr. Akshay Kumar Dahiya, Advocates.

versus

ALOK MALANI

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Asheesh Lal, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1.

Present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioners

assailing the impugned order dated 31.01.2023, whereby the Trial

Court has closed the right of the Petitioners to file the written

statement. Petitioners herein are Defendants before the Trial Court

and Respondent is the Plaintiff.

2.

Respondent herein filed a suit for eviction, permanent and

mandatory injunction before the Trial Court with respect to property

bearing No.4428-30, 2^nd Floor, Ward No.3, Ganesh Bazaar, Vishnu

Bazaar and Dau Bazaar, Delhi. Summons were issued in the suit on

19.10.2022 returnable on 31.01.2023. On 02.12.2022, Petitioners were

served with summons and copy of the plaint for appearance on

31.01.2023. When the matter was listed on 31.01.2023, Trial Court

closed the right of the Petitioners to file written statement since the

statutory period of 30 days prescribed in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for

filing written statement from date of service of summons i.e.

02.12.2022, had expired.

3.

Counsel for Petitioners submits that Petitioners were served

with the summons on 02.12.2022, however, Petitioners were unable to

Digitally Signed by:KAMAL

KUMAR

Location:

Signing Date:29.04.2023

19:11:49

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2913

Page 2 of 5

discern from the reading of the summons as to what steps they were

required to take and decided to consult a lawyer. It took Petitioners

some time to engage a lawyer and finally, Petitioners were able to

engage the present lawyers on 30.01.2023 and briefed them in the

matter. Since the matter was listed on the next day i.e. 31.01.2023,

counsel for Petitioners requested for some time to file the written

statement as the lawyers had been recently engaged and in any case,

the delay was within the period of 90 days available under Order VIII

Rule 1 CPC, within which the Court has a discretion to condone the

delay albeit on payment of costs. It is, therefore, submitted that the

impugned order be set aside and Petitioners be permitted to file

written statement, failing which grave prejudice would be caused to

them and the suit would be decided against them without any

opportunity to defend. It is also submitted that Petitioners are willing

to pay costs if the time for filing written statement is granted.

4.

Learned counsel for Respondent, appearing on the advance

copy of the petition, opposes the petition and submits that there is no

reason forthcoming in the revision petition to explain why the written

statement could not be filed on or before 31.01.2023, when Petitioners

were admittedly served on 02.12.2022 and therefore, the petition

deserves to be dismissed.

5.

I have heard learned counsels for the parties and examined their

contentions.

6.

It is an admitted position between the parties that the suit out of

which the present revision petition arises is a non-commercial suit and

the timelines for filing written statement are provided under Order

VIII Rule 1 CPC. Order VIII Rule 1 provides a period of 30 days to a

Defendant to file written statement from the date of service of

summons. Proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC provides that where the

Defendant fails to file written statement within the said period of 30

Digitally Signed by:KAMAL

KUMAR

Location:

Signing Date:29.04.2023

19:11:49

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number: 20