AI Overview...
DHC Limitation Chapter VII Rule 5 - Summary
-
Rule 5 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (DHC) Rules is mandatory and strictly enforced, particularly concerning the filing of replications. The courts have held that filing a replication under Rule 5 cannot be extended beyond the prescribed time, emphasizing its mandatory nature In Matter Of Ram Sarup Lugani VS Nirmal Lugani - Delhi, Charu Agrawal VS Alok Kalia - Delhi.
-
Time Limits & Filing Deadlines: The courts have consistently upheld that the time limit prescribed under Rule 5 is strict, and failure to comply results in dismissal or rejection of applications or pleadings. For instance, the phrase but not thereafter in Rule 5 underscores its mandatory character Charu Agrawal VS Alok Kalia - Delhi.
-
Relation to Other Rules & Laws: Several decisions clarify that Rule 5 operates in conjunction with Rules 4 and 16 of Chapter VII, and the rules prevail over the CPC in certain contexts, especially regarding procedural timelines Itd Cementation India Limited VS Indian Oil Corporation Limited - Delhi, Col Ashish Khanna Sm Retd. VS Delhi Gymkhana Club - Delhi.
-
Condonation & Extension: While some provisions, like condonation of delay, are discussed in relation to limitation and the exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, Rule 5 itself does not permit extension beyond its prescribed timeline. Courts have emphasized the strict application of Rule 5, and condonation is generally not applicable to procedural deadlines under this rule Shraddha Shandilyayan VS Livecities Media Private Limited - Delhi, Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal VS Shri Praveen Aggarwal & Others - Delhi.
-
Judicial Findings: Courts have upheld dismissals or refused to entertain late filings where Rule 5 deadlines were not met, reiterating the mandatory nature of the rule. For example, in one case, the court dismissed applications for non-compliance with Rule 5, citing its mandatory language Paramjit Singh vs Hardaman Singh Anand - Delhi.
Analysis and Conclusion
-
Main Point: Rule 5 of Chapter VII of the DHC Rules is mandatory, with strict adherence required for filing replications. The courts have consistently rejected extensions or relaxations beyond the prescribed timelines, emphasizing procedural discipline.
-
Insight: The rulings highlight the importance of timely compliance with procedural rules to ensure fair and efficient adjudication. While other provisions like condonation of delay exist, they do not override the mandatory nature of Rule 5.
-
References: The summary draws from multiple cases and rulings, notably In Matter Of Ram Sarup Lugani VS Nirmal Lugani - Delhi, Charu Agrawal VS Alok Kalia - Delhi, Itd Cementation India Limited VS Indian Oil Corporation Limited - Delhi, and Paramjit Singh vs Hardaman Singh Anand - Delhi, which reinforce the strict application and judicial stance on Rule 5 of Chapter VII.
In brief:
Rule 5 of Chapter VII of the DHC Rules mandates that filing of the replication must be within the prescribed time, and no extensions are permitted beyond this deadline. Courts have consistently upheld this strict interpretation to maintain procedural integrity.
Search Results for "Dhc Limitation Chapter Vii Rule 5"
2020 0 Supreme(Del) 1084 • India - Delhi
HIMA KOHLI, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
5 of Chapter VII of the DHC Rules. ... the replication under Rule 5 of Chapter VII of the DHC Rules is mandatory in nature and cannot be extended by the court beyond the ... Finding of the Court: The court found that the time limit for filing the replication under Rule 5 of Chapter VII of ... Chapter VII of the DHC....
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 30813 • India - High Court of Delhi
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA, JJ
(Paras 10, 12, 23) ... ... (B) DHC Original Side Rules - Rule 4, Chapter VII ... (A) Delhi High Court Act, 1966 - Section 10(1) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 104, Order VIII Rule 10, Order VII Rule ... ... ... Result: Appeal disposed of with costs increased to Rs. 1.5 lakhs. ... Nanhku (supra)5 , is totally misplaced. The said judgment was in the context of interpretation of Order VIII Rule 1 of C....
• India - Delhi High Court
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
The Defendant claimed possession since February 9, 2013, invoking Section 6's limitation relevance. ... Court allowed inclusion of documents crucial for limitation issues while stating due diligence must be exercised. ... ... ... Findings of Court: ... Documents concerning possession must be included to assess limitations correctly; costs imposed. ... [Order XVIII Rule 4 (1) CPC, Order XIX Rule 3 CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, Chapter XI Rule 1(ii), #....
2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4070 • India - Delhi
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
DELAY CONDONATION - Filing of Written Statement - DHC Rules, Order VIII Rule 1 CPC - Rule 4 of Chapter VII of DHC Rules - The ... court discussed the interpretation and application of Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the DHC Rules and its relation to Order VIII Rule ... Issues: The main issue was the interpretation and application of Rule 4 of Chapter VII#HL_....
2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5288 • India - Delhi
MINI PUSHKARNA
The court also held that the DHC Rules, 2018 prevail over the CPC, and in the absence of the affidavit of admission/denial of documents ... The DHC Rules, 2018 prevail over the CPC, and in the absence of the affidavit of admission/denial of documents, the written statement ... 5.9.Rule 3 of Chapter VII of the DHC Rules, 2018 is in conflict with Order XI of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act. ... In fact, the said decision is not applicable to the facts o....
2024 0 Supreme(Del) 340 • India - Delhi
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Limitation Act, 1963 - Condonation of Delay - CPC, 1908 - Order IX Rule 7, Order VIII Rule 1, Section 151 ... of the COVID-19 pandemic on the limitation period. ... Written Statement - [I.A. 13846/2022, I.A. 13748/2022, I.A. 13845/2022, I.A. 13747/2022] - The court discussed the provisions of the Limitation ... The inherent powers contemplated in Chapter I Rule 16 of the said Rules are not to be exercised over to overcome or circumvent the limitation....
• India - Delhi High Court
6 of Chapter 13 of the Delhi High Court Rules was duly complied with. ... the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws with effect from March 15, 2020 till further orders in view of the situation arising from onset of the COVID-19. ... The question before the Supreme Court was whether there was compliance of Chapter 13 Rule 6 of the Delhi High Court Rules and if there was no compliance, whether the decree was liable to be set asid....
2024 0 Supreme(Del) 361 • India - Delhi
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Condonation of Delay - Chamber Appeal - Limitation Act - Section 151, Rule 5 Chapter 2 of the Delhi High ... John Masih Gil, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2605 - The court discussed the provisions of the Limitation Act, Section 151 and Rule 5 Chapter ... Court (Original Side) Rule 2018, Section 151 CPC - Salem Advocate Bar Assn. ... The inherent powers contemplated in Chapter I Rule 16 of the said Rules are....
2023 0 Supreme(Del) 1034 • India - Delhi
YASHWANT VARMA
The Court further held that the phrase "but not thereafter" used in Rule 5 of the Rules makes it clear that the Rule is mandatory ... The Court further held that the phrase "but not thereafter" used in Rule 5 of the Rules makes it clear that the Rule is mandatory ... The Defendant failed to file a written statement within the time prescribed under Rule 4 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) ... Tandon was that in view of Rule 14 and 16 of #HL_STAR....
2025 0 Supreme(Del) 720 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KSHETARPAL, HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
The Court upheld the dismissal of the applications, referencing Rule 5, Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules ... (A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLIII Rule 1 - Delhi High Court Act, 1966 - Limitation - Applicability of condonable period ... (Para 3) ... ... Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Limitation Act and the rules of the ... No. 15441 of 2023- for condonation of delay of 22 days in filing replication to wr....
Filter by Legal Phrase
