$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 340/2025 & O.A. 28/2026 SUMEET RAI .....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Kirti Mewar and Ms. Kriti Sharma, Advs.

M: 7204073750 Email: lexalliance.kirti@gmail.com versus SHASHI PRABHA & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Rajesh Kr. Malhotra, Adv. for D-

1, 3 & 4 M: 9810297948 Mr. Raghu Vasishth, Adv. for D-2 M: 9873632733 Email: radhuvasishth19@gmail.com CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

% 16.02.2026 O.A. 28/2026

1. The present Chamber Appeal has been filed under Chapter 11 Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), on behalf of defendant no. 2 against the order dated 22^nd January, 2026.

2. By order dated 22^nd January, 2026, the written statement filed on behalf of defendant no. 2 was not taken on record on the ground that the same was filed beyond the statutoryperiod of 120 days.

was served upon defendant no. 2 on 12^th July, 2025 and the defendant no. 2 entered appearance on 09^th October, 2025.

of the plaint with documents, which had been supplied to defendant no. 2, had few missing pages, and the documents were not legible. Therefore, he had requested learned counsel for the plaintiff to supply a full set of the plaint.

5. At this stage, Ms. Kirti Mewar, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff confirms the fact that the defendant no. 2 had made a request for supply of fresh legible copy of the plaint with full set, which was duly supplied bythe plaintiff to defendant no. 2 on 09^th October, 2025.

6. Learned counsel appearing for defendant no. 2 submits that the period of 30 days from 09^th October, 2025 expired on 08^th November, 2025. He submits that the written statement was filed on 24^th November, 2025, i.e., with a delayof 15 days. Thus, the written statement has been filed within the statutorytime period of 120 days.

7. Learned counsel appearing for defendant no. 2 relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Kalra Versus Raj Kishan Chabra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 613, to submit that the Supreme Court has stated that Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC was not mandatory and thus, in non-commercial suits, written statements filed beyond the period of 120 days was allowed to be taken on record.

8. However, this Court notes that the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court emanated from the judgment of this Court passed in a Civil Miscellaneous (Main), i.e., CM(M), which is a petition filed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (“Constitution”) against the order of the Trial Court. Thus, it is clear that the aforesaid judgment decided by the Supreme Court pertains to a suit pending in the District Court. However, in the present case, since the suit is pending before this Court, the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, will govern the issue of filing of the written statement.

9. At this stage, learned counsels appearing for the plaintiff as well as the defendant no. 2 submit that they shall bring before this Court the relevant orders/judgments, wherein, the issue with regard to the inter-play between Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC and the Delhi High Court (Original Side)

Rules, 2018, has been considered bythe Court.

10. Accordingly, re-notify on 26^th February, 2026.

MINI PUSHKARNA, J FEBRUARY 16, 2026/KR