$~46

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 17.11.2025

+ FAO(OS) 142/2025, CM APPL. 71733/2025, CM APPL. 71734/2025, CM APPL. 71735/2025

ASHOK KUMAR KAUSHIK & ANR. .....Appellants

Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Mr. Suman Raj, Mr. Rishi Raj, Advs.

versus

MAHIPAL SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Mr. Shivam Takiar, Mr. Prateek Dhir, Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Through the present Appeal, the Appellants assail the correctness of the order dated 07.08.2025 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) 369/2020, whereby the learned Single Judge declined to condone the delay in filing the Replication by the Plaintiffs (Respondents herein) beyond the period of 45 days permissible under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 [hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”]. The learned Single Judge also directed that certain documents filed by the Defendants (Appellants herein) after filing of the Written Statement be ignored/taken off the record.

2. The factual matrix and chronology material for the decision of this Appeal are not in dispute and may be recorded succinctly:

i. The Plaintiffs instituted CS(OS) 369/2020 seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions in October 2020.

ii. The Defendants filed their Written Statement, without complete/entire documents on 21.12.2020.

iii. The Defendants placed certain documents on record and served copies upon the Plaintiffs thereafter, the service/filing of those documents is recorded on 25.01.2021 (with further reference to 28.01.2021 in the file).

iv. The Plaintiffs filed their Replication on 09.02.2021. The Plaintiffs contended that the period for filing Replication ought to be computed from the date when the Plaintiffs were furnished with the documents relied upon by the Defendants, i.e. 25.01.2021 and therefore the Replication filed on 09.02.2021 was within the permissible time computed from that date. The Defendants, however, contended that the period for filing Replication must be computed from the date of service/filing of the Written Statement (21.12.2020), and that the Replication filed on 09.02.2021 was thus time-barred.

3. The learned Single Judge held that the scheme of the Rules requires the Defendant to file a comprehensive Written Statement together with all documents relied upon and to serve the same on the Plaintiff in advance; that the Replication is to be filed within the period specified from the date when such comprehensive Written Statement (i.e., the written pleading together with its supporting documents) has been made available to the Plaintiff; and that, accordingly, documents filed by the Defendants after the Written Statement (and after the initial computation of the Replication period) could not be relied upon and had to be ignored.

4. Before this Court, learned counsel representing the Appellants contends that Rule 5 uses the narrower expression “written statement” and not the expression “written statement together with said documents” as stipulated under Rule 2 and that, therefore, the Replication period prescribed under Rule 5 must be computed from the date of filing/service of the Written Statement (21.12.2020) irrespective of whether documents were supplied thereafter. According to learned counsel, confining the computation to the date when the complete set of documents was served is unnecessary and unduly restrictive of the Defendant’s procedural rights and is inconsistent with the literal wording of Rule 5.

5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel representing the parties. At this stage, it would be apposite to notice the relevant provisions of the Rules that govern the timelines for filing the Written Statement and the Replication. Rule 2 and Rule 5, respectively, read as under -

“2.