Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6541
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J
Ravindra Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
Laxmi Chand Gupta – Respondent
CM(M) 965/2026 | CM APPL. 28296/2026 | CM APPL. 28297/2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Pleading and Limitation
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order of the trial court that dismissed an application for condonation of delay in filing a written statement. The written statement was previously taken off the record due to the absence of such an application. A period of over two years and two months passed before the petitioner filed a subsequent application, citing a change in legal representation as the reason for the delay.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner failed to provide a valid explanation for the lengthy delay. It affirmed the lower court's decision, noting that the reason provided regarding change of counsel is insufficient to justify such a substantial passage of time. The procedural requirements to ensure timely adjudication must be upheld.
Issues: Whether a change of counsel constitutes a sufficient cause for condoning an inordinate delay in filing a written statement and the accompanying application for condonation of delay after the original pleading was removed from the record.
Ratio Decidendi: The lapse of more than two years without a satisfactory explanation fails to establish sufficient cause. Procedural delays caused by change of counsel lack merit when the timeline for filing is significantly exceeded without due diligence.
Result: Petition dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Raj Kamal, Narayani, Dimpy
For the Respondents: None
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context for revision petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. endorsement of trial court's dismissal order. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. negligence of counsel as grounds for delay. (Para 4 , 5) |
ORDER (Oral)
Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.
1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 13th February, 2026 passed by the learned Trial Court in case bearing No. CS DJ 396/2021, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant no. 1 under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been dismissed.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial court has passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures which is against the facts and law. The delay in filing the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement is only on account of change of Counsel and for that, the petitioner should not suffer.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI
5. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 13th February, 2026 reads as follows:
“Heard. Record perused.
The written statement of the defendant no.1 was taken off the record on 23.11.2023 and more than two years and two months passed since then. The plea of the defendant no.1 that his previous counsel has failed to file the application for condonation of delay in filing written statement and the defendant no.1 should not be punished for the mistake of the previous counsel has no substance. The defendant no.1 not only failed to explain the delay of more than eight months in filing the written statement but also the application in hand after more than two years and two months from the date when his written statement was taken off the record.
In view of the above discussions, there is no merit in the application U/o 8 Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC and the same is dismissed.”
6. A perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 23rd November, 2023, the written statement of the petitioner was taken off the record on account of the same not being accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. The application under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC for condonation of delay in filing written statement has been filed after a delay of more than two (02) years and two (02) months from the date of the said order. The change of counsel does not constitute any sufficient cause for condonation of such unreasonable delay. Accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order and it is upheld.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI
The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
