Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 is mandatory, prescribing an absolute outer limit of 120 days for filing written statements. Courts have no jurisdiction to condone delays beyond this period, as the phrase “but not thereafter” constitutes valid legislative exclusion.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 challenging the Order dated 16.10.2024 (hereinafter referred to as “impugned order”) passed by the learned Single Judge in interim application being I.A No. 41937 of 2024 in CS(OS) No. 72 of 2024 titled as Naresh Verma v. Manoj Kumar Jain & Ors.

2. The Civil Suit was originally instituted by the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 seeking declaration/cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 28.01.2021 executed by the Appellants herein in favour of Defendant no. 1 (Respondent No. 2 herein) as well as consequent decree of declaration, pre-emption and declaration directing Defendant No. 1 to transfer Second Floor of property bearing No. 91, Jain Cooperative House Building Society Limited, known as Bahubali Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi - 110092 (‘suit property’) and deliver actual physical possession thereof to the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 along with a decree for mesne profits and permanent injunction.

3. By way of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the application under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, filed by the Appellants seeking condonation of delay in filing their written statement in the aforementioned Civil Suit.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submits that when the aforementioned suit was listed for hearing before this Court, the learned Single Judge, vide Order dated 31.10.2024, issued summons to the Appellants in the same. He submits that upon receiving the summons on 09.04.2024, the Appellants, through their counsel, appeared before the learned Joint Registrar whereby, on instructions of the Appellants, a request was made to supply a complete set of copy of the plaint and documents to them.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellants further submits that on the morning of 28.06.2024, his office, situated at D-220 on the lower ground floor at Defence Colony, Delhi, was flooded due to heavy rainfall, due to which, all his files, documents, laptops and computer were destroyed. He submits that due to this unforeseen circumstance, the draft written statement prepared by his office in the present matter got destroyed and remained untraceable and unretrievable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the Appellants has relied upon the photographs of the incident evidencing the said damage which has been annexed as Annexure A-6 to the present appeal.

6. He submits that on apprising this Court about the incident, the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 25.07.2024, further granted ten days’ time to file the written statement on behalf of the Appellants in light of the losses suffered by him, and subsequently thereafter, the written statement was filed on 27.08.2024 along with the application being I.A No. 41937 of 2024.

7. Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that when the aforesaid application came up for consideration before this Court, the learned Single Judge erroneously recorded that there was a delay of 140 days in filing the written statement, thereby, dismissing the application seeking condonation of delay in view of Chapter VII Rule 4 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

8. He submits that the repercussions of the dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay has caused severe prejudice to the Appellants in defending their case. He also submits that the delay caused in filing the written statement was unintentional, unforeseen and solely on account of his personal difficulty as his office was flooded in heavy rains.

9. He further submits that the l