Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia on September 15, 2025, held that courts cannot adopt a lenient approach in condoning delay for filing Written Statements beyond statutory limits. Refusing to interfere with the trial court’s order, the Bench held that reliance on certified copies from other litigation did not constitute exceptional circumstances under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and dismissed the petition challenging closure of the defendant’s right to file the written statement.

The matter before the High Court of Delhi arose from a suit instituted by respondent no. 1 against the petitioner and respondents no. 2–4 seeking declaration, injunction, and other reliefs. During the pendency of proceedings before the trial court, respondents no. 2–4 were proceeded against ex parte. The petitioner, who was defendant no. 1 in the suit, did not file his Written Statement within the statutory period prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, by order dated 01.04.2025, the trial court closed his right to file the Written Statement.

Also Read: Marriage Liabilities Constitute Legal Necessity | Supreme Court Quashes Karnataka High Court Decree Upholding Partition | HUF Karta’s Sale Of Ancestral Land Held Valid

Subsequently, on 01.05.2025, the petitioner moved two applications: one seeking recall of the order dated 01.04.2025 and another under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement. Both applications were dismissed by the trial court on 22.07.2025. The petitioner thereafter approached the High Court by way of the present petition assailing that order.

The petitioner’s contention before the High Court was that since the Written Statement had been filed within 120 days of service of summons, the trial court should have taken a lenient view and allowed it. He explained that the delay occurred because he had applied for certified copies of records pertaining to another litigation, which he considered essential for preparing his Written Statement.

The trial court had taken the view that the plea regarding the necessity of certified copies was only a ruse to justify delay. It found no error apparent on the face of the record or any new fact to justify recall of its earlier order. Aggrieved, the petitioner sought intervention from the High Court. The statutory provision directly involved was Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, particularly its proviso regarding the 90-day extendable period for filing a Written Statement after service of summons.

Justice Girish Kathpalia recorded that the petitioner was served with summons on 19.12.2024 and the statutory period to file the Written Statement as of right expired on 18.01.2025. The extended period under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, being 90 days from service, expired on 18.03.2025. The Court stated: “It is trite that even 90 days after service of summons, the court is not powerless to condone delay in filing the Written Statement, but that has to be done only in exceptional circumstances.”

The Bench examined the petitioner’s plea that delay occurred due to the necessity of obtaining certified copies from another litigation. The Court observed: “Those documents were at the most a piece of evidence and not the facts to be pleaded in the Written Statement. The petitioner could have pleaded only to the extent that plaintiff no. 1 was not a lawful attorney of plaintiff no. 2 for filing of the suit.”

It further stated: “Nothing prevented the present petitioner from taking inspection of the documents of the other suit in order to ensure that the Written Statement was filed in time, instead of waiting for certified copies.” The Court recorded its agreement with the trial court’s finding that the exercise of obtaining certified copies was only a ruse and could not be accepted as an exceptional circumstance.

Also Read: Delhi High Court | Partition Suit by Granddaughter Rejected | No Right in Grandparent’s Property During Parent’s Lifetime Under Section 8 HSA

Addressing the review aspect, the Court noted: “It cannot be said that the learned trial court in the impugned order wrongly observed it to be not a case of error apparent on the face of record or any additional fact which came to the petitioner’s knowledge belatedly despite due diligence.”

Finally, on the broader principle, the Court stated: “I am unable to accept the argument of learned counsel for petitioner that for condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement the courts must take lenient view. Such an approach would make the provisions under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC completely otiose and frustrate the basic purpose behind amendment of Civil Procedure Code, carried out in the year 2002.”

Justice Kathpalia stated: “I am unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order, so the same is upheld and the present petition and the accompanying applications are dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kinger and Mr. Digvejender Sharma, Advocates

Case Title: Sh. Kewal Krishan v. Sh. Gulshan Kumar & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8097

Case Number: CM(M) 1806/2025, CM APPL. 58071/2025 & 58070/2025

Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia