$~S-22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) 157/2024 & CM APPL.64997/2024 CHANDNI FAZLI .....Appellant Through: Mr.Ankit Jain, Advocate with Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Vishal Saxena, Ms.Aayushi Jain, Mr.Aditya Chauhan, Mr.Rishabh Jain, Ms.Divyanshu Rathi and Ms.Radhika Bansal, Advocates.

versus RAZIA SULTANA AND ORS .....Respondents Through:

% Date of Decision: 07^th November, 2024 CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, CJ : (ORAL)

CM APPL.64998/2024 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

FAO(OS) 157/2024 & CM APPL.64997/2024

3. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 20^th September, 2024 passed in I.A. No.8769/2023 in O.A. No.105/2024 in CS(OS) 730/2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the chambers appeal and the delay in filing the written statement on the part of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT the Respondents 1 to 3 (Defendants No.1 to 3 in the underlying suit) has been condoned, subject to costs. The underlying suit has been filed by the Appellant (Plaintiff therein) seeking, inter alia, a preliminary decree of partition of the properties of her father Late Mr.Intezar Ahmed Siddiqui.

4. The chambers appeal was filed by the Respondents No.1 to 3, challenging the order of the learned Joint Registrar dated 3^rd May, 2024, whereby I.A. 8769/2023 filed by them for condonation of delay in filing the written statement was dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the impugned order has been passed based on conjectures and surmises and without paying heed to the provisions of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (“Original Side Rules”) by allowing the Respondents/Defendants No.1 to 3 to place on record their written statement despite the expiry of the statutory period of one hundred twenty (120) days. He further states that the learned Single Judge has erred by taking on record the written statement by simply opining that advance copy of the same was served upon the Appellant/Plaintiff within one hundred twenty (120) days after being served. According to him the said reasoning is not tenable in view of Rule 4 of the Original Side Rules. He submits that the interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge on Rules 3 and 4 of the Original Side Rules is erroneous. He lastlystates that no application seeking condonation of delayin re-filing was filed.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant, this Court is of the view that the issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is interpretation of Rules 3 and 4 of the Original Side Rules. The said Rules are reproduced herein below:-

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT “3. Affidavit of admission/ denial of documents alongwith written statement.- Alongwith the written statement, defendant shall also file an affidavit of admission/ denial of documents filed by the plaintiff, without which the written statement shall not be taken on record. Alongwith the written statement, the defendant shall be entitled to file applications for interrogatories for examination of the plaintiff together with proposed interrogatories; application for discovery; and application for inspection of suchdocuments.

4. Extension of time for filing written statement.—If the Court is satisfied that the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause for exceptional and unavoidable reasons in filing the written statement within 30 days, it may extend the time for filing the same by a further period not exceeding 90 days, but not thereafter. For such extension of time, the party in delay shall be burdened with costs as deemed appropriate. The written statement shall not be taken on record unless such costs have been paid/ deposited. In case the defendant fails to file the affidavit of admission/ denial of documents filed by the plaintiff, the documents filed by the plaintiff shall be deemed to b