##PAGE1##

$~75

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

I.A. 32400/2025 & O.A. 241/2025

IN

+ CS(OS) 665/2022

BASANT KUMAR JAIN .....Plaintiff

Through: Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Mr. Manohar

Naagar, Mr. Bhanu Sonariya and Mr.

Aditya Chauhan, Adv.

versus

ANUJA HOODA JAIN & ANR. .....Defendants

Through: Ms. Risha Dixit, Adv. for D-1.

Mr. Gaurav Kumar Jain, D-2 in

person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

O R D E R

% 22.12.2025

I.A. 32400/2025 (seeking exemption from filing certified copies)

1. Allowed, subject to the appellant filing certified copies of documents

within four (4) weeks from today.

2. The application stands disposed of.

O.A. 241/2025

3. The present Chamber Appeal has been filed on behalf of defendant

no.1 against the impugned order dated 14^th October, 2025 passed by the

Joint Registrar dismissing the application filed on behalf of defendant no.1

seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement being I.A.

23184/2023.

CS(OS)665/2022 Page1of

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/01/2026 at 01:08:17

4. I have heard the counsel for the parties.

5. Briefly stated, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff against

his daughter-in-law being defendant no.1. Defendant no.2 is the son of the

plaintiff. Summons were served on the defendant no.1 on 2^nd February,

2023.

6. The original plaintiff, being the father-in-law of defendant no.1,

expired on 9^th March, 2023. Subsequently, the mother-in-law of defendant

no.1 was substituted as the legal representative of the plaintiff. Pertinently,

no application to amend the plaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, which

the defendant no.1 was anticipating.

7. In these circumstances, defendant no.1 filed her written statement on

2^nd September, 2023 and on 27^th September, 2023, filed an application I.A.

23184/2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement.

8. It is stated in the application that the delay was on account of the

death of the original plaintiff and the pendency of the impleadment

application.

9. In these circumstances, in my view, the 120 days’ limitation for filing

written statement cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the

case.

10. Defendant no.1 had a valid concern after the death of the original

plaintiff that in view of the pending substitution, the plaint would be

amended and there was uncertainly in her mind.

11. In my considered view, the period after the death of the original

plaintiff and the time consumed during the substitution of the legal

representative of the original plaintiff should not be counted for the purposes

of limitation.

CS(OS)665/2022 Page2of

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/01/2026 at 01:08:17

12. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order

dated 14^th October, 2025 is set aside.

CS(OS) 665/2022

13. In view of the order passed above, the written statement by defendant

no.1 is permitted to be taken on record.

14. Replication to the written statement be filed within thirty (30) days.

15. List before the Joint Registrar on 16^th January, 2026, the date already

fixed, for competition of pleadings and admission/denial of documents.

16. List before the Court on 28^th April, 2026.

AMIT BANSAL, J

DECEMBER 22, 2025

Vivek/-

CS(OS)665/2022 Page3of

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/01/2026 at 01:08:17