The time limits prescribed under the High Court (Original Side) Rules for filing a written statement are mandatory. The court lacks the power to condone delays beyond the maximum 120-day period due to the peremptory language 'but not thereafter' used in the Rules.

Headnote:(A) High Court of Delhi (Original Side) Rules, 2018 - Rules 2 and 4, Chapter VII - Written Statement - Condonation of delay - Procedural law - The time limit for filing written statement is 30 days, extendable by a further period not exceeding 90 days, but not thereafter - The phrase “but not thereafter” is mandatory and peremptory, indicating that the court has no power to condone delay beyond the 120-day limit. (Paras 13, 17, 21)

(B) Precedents - Doctrine of binding precedent - Duty of the court - Judgments rendered by coordinate benches or benches of a larger composition bind a court irrespective of doubts or views that may be harbored by individual judges - Novel arguments or fresh reviews of statutory provisions are insufficient grounds to discard binding precedents. (Paras 31, 32)

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a chamber appeal against the order of the Joint Registrar, who closed the right to file the written statement due to the failure to file it within the prescribed period. The appellant contended that incomplete service of the paperbook prevented the timely filing of the written statement, arguing for an extension beyond the prescribed timeframe despite the expiry of 120 days from the initial service of summons.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant was served with the summons and failed to act with due diligence. Furthermore, the court held that the language employed in the court rules is explicit and mandatory, leaving no room for the exercise of discretion to extend time beyond the outer limit of 120 days.

Issues: Whether the Court has the power to condone delay in filing a written statement beyond the maximum period of 120 days prescribed under the local rules of the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The use of the phrase “but not thereafter” in the local court rules acts as an express exclusion of the court's power to condone delay under the Code of Civil Procedure or the Limitation Act. Following the doctrine of stare decisis, this peremptory timeline must be strictly adhered to, as the high court is bound by its previous division bench decisions which established that these rules constitute a complete code occupying the field.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual history regarding summons service and filing timeline. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. mandatory nature of delhi high court original side rules regarding timelines. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)

5. The present Chamber Appeal under Rule 5 Chapter II of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 [“DHC OS Rules”] has been filed by Defendant No.2/Appellant against the Order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the Ld. Joint Registrar, whereby, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement was dismissed and the right of Defendant No.2 for filing the written statement was closed [“Impugned Order”].

6. The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking partition and injunction in respect of two properties—House No. 39, Kailash Hills, East of Kailash [“Residential Property”]; and Shop No. G-6/58, Sahyog Building, Nehru Place [“Shop”]. For the sake of convenience, both these properties shall be collectively referred to as the „Suit Properties‟.

7. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Residential Property was jointly purchased by the Plaintiff, his late wife Smt. Sudarshan Kapoor, and Defendants No. 1 and 2 in 1990, while the Shop was jointly acquired by Defendants No. 1 and 2 along with the late wife of the Plaintiff.

8. It is stated that upon the death of Smt. Sudarshan Kapoor in 2010, her undivided share devolved equally upon the Plaintiff and all Defendants. The Plaintiff further pleads that in 2015, Defendant No. 3 orally relinquished her share in his favour, thereby enhancing his claimed share in both the Suit Properties.

9. It is stated that disputes arose in the year 2019, when Defendant No.2/Appellant objected to the Plaintiff‟s Will in favour of Defendant No. 1, and thereafter refused the Plaintiff‟s demand for partition on 15.03.2019. Since the Suit Properties remain jointly held and undivided, the Plaintiff instituted the present Suit seeking partition by metes and bounds and consequential injunction against creation of third-party rights in respect of both the Suit Properties.

10. Summons in the Suit was issued on 26.04.2019.

11. It is the case of the Defendant No.2/Appellant that though summons were served on the Defendant No.2 on 15.05.2019, he was supplied an incomplete set of pleadings and documents, which impaired his ability to prepare a proper Written Statement. It is stated that the complete paper book was handed over only on 21.08.2019, when the learned Counsel for the Defendant No.2/Appellant entered appearance and raised the issue before the Court. It is stated that after receiving the complete paperbook, between August and October 2019 the Appellant undertook verification of historical title documents relating to the Suit Properties—such as the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, etc., which were over decades old and the Written Statement was thereafter filed on 18.10.2019.

12. It is stated that an Application for condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement was filed on 31.10.2019, however, defects were repeatedly marked in that application and the same was resultantly refiled multiple times. It is stated that on 16.03.2020, a fresh application for condonation of delay was filed by the Defendant No.2 vide Diary Number 412589/2020. However, partly due to COVID-19 disruption and change of counsels representing the Defendant No.2/Appellant, the said Application could not be traced. Eventually, a fresh Application, being I.A. 639/2023, was filed on 31.01.2023. Notice in the said Application was issued on 31.01.2023 and despite notice the Plaintiff did not file any reply to this application. It is, therefore, the case of the Defendant No.2/Appellant that the Ld. Joint Registrar failed to appreciate that service was incomplete and limitation for filing the Written Statement could start only upon receipt of the complete paper book on 21.08.2019. It is, therefore, the case of the Defendant No.2 that without full pleadings,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4655

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHISubramonium Prasad, JSanjeev Kapoor – AppellantVersusParshottam Lal Kapoor – RespondentCS(OS) 224/2019 | I.A. 4972/2026 | O.A. 45/2026

The time limits prescribed under the High Court (Original Side) Rules for filing a written statement are mandatory. The court lacks the power to condone delays beyond the maximum 120-day period due to the peremptory language 'but not thereafter' used in the Rules.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J
Sanjeev Kapoor – Appellant
Versus
Parshottam Lal Kapoor – Respondent
CS(OS) 224/2019 | I.A. 4972/2026 | O.A. 45/2026