$~63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 18^thFebruary, 2026 + CM(M) 347/2026, CM APPL. 9616/2026, CM APPL. 9617/2026, CM APPL. 9618/2026 &CM APPL. 11058/2026 MR LOKESH SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Sangita Rai and Ms. Saumam Singh, Advocates.

versus DELHI PUBLIC LIBRARY .....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

ORDER (Oral)

Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.

1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the impugned order dated 08^th January, 2026, passed by the learned Trial Court in CS DJ No. 496/2023, whereby an application of the petitioner/defendant under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 148 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), seeking extension of time to file the written statement has been dismissed.

3. Heard. Record perused.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures and that the same is against the facts and law. It is further submitted that the delay in filing the written statement occurred on account of the petitioner being 70 years of age and his wife suffering from life threatening illness which requires regular doctor visits and medical treatment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prays that since the delay in filing the written statement was beyond the control of the petitioner, the same be condoned and the written statement be taken on record.

5. Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC reads as under:

“1. Written Statement.— The Defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:

Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day,as may bespecified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.”

6. In the case of Gautam Bhowmick v Prem Chand 167 (2010) DLT274, a coordinate bench of this Court observed as under:

"7. It had become a tendency of the defendants to prolong the trial of the case and to drag the proceedings as long as possible, since prolonging of the proceedings itself results in defeating justice. In order to curb this tendency, amendments were made in Civil Procedure Code and the Supreme Court after considering the legal position took a view that while the written statement should be filed within 30 days, extension of time for filing written statement beyond 30 days but within 90 days should be given if reasonable grounds are shown by the defendant and the Court is satisfied with those grounds. Beyond 90 days, the Court is not powerless in extending the time for filing written statement but this discretion must be exercised only in exceptional cases so that the procedure does not defeat the substantive justice".

7. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 08^th January, 2026 reads as follows:

“6. Defendant appeared before the court through counsel on 01.08.2023 and was served with the summons of the suit on 20.05.2023 and it was observed by the court on 01.08.2023 itself that 30 days period for filing written statement has already expired.However,despiteit,defendant didnot choose to file written statement. He was well represented through a counsel on the said date and thereafter but while defendant chose to pursue his application U/o 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC, he did not file written statement and opportunity to file the same was finally closed on21.10.2024i.e.aftera period ofmorethan an year from the date of 30 days time period of filing written statement. The delay is considerable and for a period of about more than one year and 07 months. The sickness of wife of the plaintiffandhercontinuoustreatmentcannotbeconsideredas reasonabl