$~6 (original side)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision : 10.04.2026 + EL.PET. 6/2025 & I.A. 24258/2025 I.A. 24259/2025 I.A. 29435/2025 I.A. 29477/2025 I.A. 29719/2025 SMT. A. DHANWATI CHANDELA A .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bahar U-Barqi, Mr. Maroof Ahmad, Advs.

versus SHRI MANJINDER SINGH SIRSA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Neeraj, Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji, Ms. Megha Sharma, Mr. Nishank Tripathi, Mr. Aniruddha Ghosh, Advs.

for R-1 Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Advs. for Returning Officer %

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL)

I.A. 29477/2025 (seeking recall of order dated 25.09.2025 I.A. 29719/2025(seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement

1. I.A. 29477/2025 has been filed by Respondent No. 1 for seeking recall of the order dated 25.09.2025, whereby his right to file reply to the Election Petition has been forfeited.

2. I.A. 29719/2025 has also been filed by Respondent No. 1, seeking condonation of delay of 37 days in filing the written statement and praying for the written statement to be taken on record.

3. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/Respondent no. 1 states that the applicant was initially served with the paper-book on 25.04.2025. He states that the Election Petition has been filed substantially on the basis of the allegations made, relying upon particular CDs. He states however, the CDs were not served upon the Respondent No. 1 on 25.04.2025, itself.

3.1 He states that Respondent No. 1 requested for the CDs by communications dated 05.05.2025 and 01.07.2025, however, no CDs were provided and therefore Respondent No. 1 filed I.A. no. 17399/2025 seeking directions to the Petitioner for providing the Respondent No. 1, with the CDs. He states that the said application was allowed by the learned Joint Registrar, with the consent of the Petitioner, and the CDs were supplied to Respondent No. 1 on 01.08.2025.

3.2 He states that, therefore the Election Petition along with the CDs was received in its entirety by the Respondent No. 1 on 01.08.2025 and the period of 30 days for filing of the written statement ought to be reckoned from the said date. He submits that the period of 30 days expired on 31.08.2025 and on the same day Respondent No. 1 e-filed its reply with the Registry. He states that defects, in the written statement, were marked on 12.09.2025, the same were removed, albeit belatedly on 08.10.2025, when the written statement was re-filed after removing all the defects. He states that in this process there has been a delay of 37 days beyond the original period of 30 days and this Court may condone this delay and, if deemed appropriate, impose costs.

3.3 He states that the written statement along with affidavit of admission/denial of documents stands served on the Petitioner, on

07.10.2025.

3.4 He states that Respondent No. 1 had undertaken before this Court on 25.08.2025 that the written statement will be filed within one (1) week and it was indeed e-filed on 31.08.2025. He states that the delay beyond 31.08.2025 occurred on account of the marriage of the daughter of Respondent No. 1 and due to ineffectiveness of the filing counsel.

3.5 He states that these facts may be taken into consideration and the order dated 25.09.2025 of forfeiting the right to file written statement of the Respondent No. 1 maybe recalled.

3.6 He states that the period for filing the written statement ought to be governed by Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [‘CPC’], which is directory in nature and not by the Delhi High Court (Original Side)

Rules, 2018 (‘DHC Rules’).

4. In reply, Mr. Barqi, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that Respondent No. 1 was duly served with the pleadings on 26.03.2025, and again on 28.03.2025.

4.1 He states that Respondent No. 1 entered appearance in these proceedings on 25.04.2025 and sought four (4) weeks’ time to f