$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI I.A. 31605/2025, I.A. 31606/2025 & O.A. 235/2025 IN + CS(OS) 87/2023 HARSHAVARDHAN SANCHETI .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sanchit Garga and Ms. Dhriti Singh, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Ms. Vrinda Kapoor, Ms. Saumya Soni and Mr. Vishal Vaid, Advocates for DDA/D-10.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

O R D E R

% 17.12.2025 I.A. 31605/2025 (seeking exemption from filing certified/ true typed/

legible copies of documents)

1. Allowed, subject to plaintiff filing certified/ true typed/ legible copies of documents within four (4) weeks from today.

2. The application stands disposed of.

O.A. 235/2025 I.A. 31606/2025 (seeking condonation of delay of 128 days in re-filing O.A. 235/2025)

3. O.A. 235/2025 has been filed against the order passed by the Joint Registrar on 21^st July, 2025 whereby the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant no.10 was directed to be taken off the record on the ground that the same has been filed beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons. In this regard, relevant observations of the Joint Registrar in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the impugned order are set out below:

“7. It is not disputed that the written statement was initially filed on 14.07.2023. Even from the date of filing of amended memo i.e. 10.02.2023, the time of 30 days for filing the written statement was expired on 12.03.2023. The maximum extendable period of 120 days in filing the written statement was also expired on or about 12.06.2023. Therefore, the written statement was filed after about 1 month from the maximum extendable period from service. As per Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, there is no such provision that these rules will applicable only if the Registry will point out any defect. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that as Registry has not raised any defect, therefore, the time for filing the written statement will automatically extend. The written statement was also not accompanied with any applicationfor condonationof delay.

8. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances, as written statement filed on behalf of defendant no. 10 was not filed within the statutory period of 30 days or within the maximum extendable period of 120 days, thesamestands takenoff therecord.”

4. Ms. Vrinda Kapoor, counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant no. 10/ DDA, concedes the fact that the written statement was filed beyond a period of 120 days from the date of issuance of summons. However, it is submitted that since the Registry did not raise any objection with regard to delay in filing the written statement, the appellant did not file an application seeking condonation of delay. Hence, it is submitted that an opportunity may be given to the appellant to file an application for condonation of delay.

5. As noted above, the Joint Registrar did not accept this contention. No fault can be found with the reasoning of Joint Registrar that merely because the Registry did not raise a defect qua delay in filing written statement, the defendant should not have filed an application seeking condonation of delay along with the written statement. The applicant ought to have been aware that the written statement is being filed beyond the mandated period of 30 days.

6. In any event, filing of an application seeking condonation of delay would not help the case of the appellant as in light of the judgment of the Division Bench in Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. v. Col. Ashish Khanna SM Retd. & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7022, and Manhar Sabharwal v. High Court of Delhi & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5945 filing of the written statement beyond 120 days cannot be condoned by the Court.

7. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal.

8. Accordingly, O.A. 235/2025 is dismissed.

9. Consequentially, the application I.A. 31606/2025 seeking condonation of delay of 128 days in re-filing the present appeal also stands dismissed.

AMIT BANSAL, J DECEMBER 17, 2025 ds