Navigating Procedural Rigidity: Delhi High Court's Stance on Delay Condonation in Written Statements
Introduction:This case study examines a significant judgment from the High Court of Delhi that addresses the rigid timelines for filing written statements in civil suits under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The appeals in question challenge the refusal to condone delays beyond the prescribed 120-day period, highlighting tensions between procedural strictness and equitable considerations in litigation. The decision reinforces the mandatory nature of court rules over general principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and underscores the evolving judicial interpretation of delay condonation in non-commercial suits. By dismissing the appeals, the court emphasizes the importance of timely compliance to ensure expeditious justice, while navigating arguments on legal uncertainty, the nature of the underlying suit, and historical precedents.
Factual Background:The underlying suit, CS (OS) No. 655/2017, was instituted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the respondents, Doris Chung Gim Lian and others, against the appellants, Shantanu Prakash and Pramod Thatoi, among others. The suit pertains to matters involving a trust or charitable institution, with allegations of malafide intentions and a chequered history between the parties. The appellants contended that the suit was a mere camouflage, lacking bonafides, and involved voluminous documents, including historical records and over a thousand emails exchanged between the parties. They also cited operational disruptions due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which led to office closures and limited functioning, as contributing factors to the delay in preparing their defense. The respondents, however, maintained that the appellants had been actively participating in related litigations and the present suit without any evident impediments, demonstrating continuous appearances through counsel.
Procedural Background:The suit was filed in 2017, and summons were served on the appellants. The appellants failed to file their written statements within the initial 30 days or the extended period up to 120 days as per Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The Joint Registrar, on 05.11.2024, passed a reasoned order closing the appellants' right to file the written statements due to the delay. Aggrieved, the appellants challenged this before a Single Judge in O.A. No. 226/2024 and O.A. No. 227/2024, which were dismissed by a common judgment on 23.01.2025. The appellants then filed the present appeals, FAO(OS) 39/2025 and FAO(OS) 40/2025, before a Division Bench, arguing primarily on legal grounds. The appeals were reserved on 29.07.2025 and decided on 14.08.2025, with the court hearing extensive arguments on the condonability of the delay.
Core Dispute:The central issue revolves around whether the court has the discretion to condone delays in filing written statements beyond the maximum 120-day period stipulated under Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, in non-commercial suits. The appellants argued that equity demands condonation given the suit's nature under Section 92, the historical disputes between parties, prevailing legal uncertainty during the relevant period, and exceptional circumstances like the Covid-19 pandemic and voluminous documentation. They sought to rely on past judgments allowing such delays upon payment of costs or due to interpretative ambiguities. In contrast, the respondents asserted that the rules are mandatory, with no room for condonation, and that the appellants' active participation in proceedings negated any claim of prejudice. The dispute thus pits procedural rigidity against claims of substantive justice, questioning if inherent powers or Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure can override court-specific rules.
Discussion on Judgments:The parties cited several judgments to support their positions, reflecting the evolving jurisprudence on delay condonation under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The appellants relied on Esha Gupta v. Rohit Vig, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2702, particularly paragraphs 7, 8, and 10, to argue that given the nature of the suit, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the written statement, as denying it could cause undue prejudice and prevent a fair adjudication; they emphasized the bonafides shown by having a ready defense. They invoked Amarendra Dhari Singh v. R.C. Nursery Private Limited, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 84, especially paragraphs 23 to 26, to contend that the rules preserve judicial discretion to condone delays beyond 120 days, interpreting the word "may" in Rule 4 as enabling rather than mandatory, and noting the High Court's choice not to adopt the stricter language of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In Jamaluddin v. Nawabuddin, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 974, paragraph 6 was highlighted, which references Bharat Kalra v. Raj Kishan Chabra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 613, to submit that delays can be condoned with costs in non-commercial suits, as Order VIII Rule 1 is not mandatory; the appellants offered to pay costs but acknowledged this judgment overlooked the specific High Court Rules. Vikrant Khanna vs. Amita Lamba, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6661, paragraph 23, was cited to trace uncertainty in interpreting Rule 4, resolved only by Manhar Sabarwal vs. High Court of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5945, arguing for leniency due to this ambiguity during the suit's dormancy. They distinguished Bharat Singh vs. Karan Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 691, as an instance where condonation was permitted, and sought to revive the distinction between Rules 4 and 5 rejected in Charu Agarwal v. Alok Kalia & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1238, paragraph 10 of which was extracted in the impugned judgment to affirm no such distinction exists, emphasizing the peremptory language "but not thereafter" in both rules. The respondents countered with Harjyot Singh vs. Manpreet Kaur, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2629, to assert that delays cannot be condoned, predating any claimed uncertainty. They distinguished Vikrant Khanna on its peculiar facts, as noted in paragraph 23, and relied on Manhar Sabarwal, along with implied references to Amit Tara and Delhi Gymkhana Club (full citations not specified but contextually supporting no condonation), to affirm the settled prohibition. Additionally, Modula India vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo, (1988) 4 SCC 619, was invoked to argue that rejecting a written statement does not leave a party defenceless, as cross-examination remains available and proceedings are not ex-parte.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:The Division Bench, comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, meticulously analyzed the arguments, focusing on the pure question of law regarding condonation under the High Court Rules. They found no infirmity in the Single Judge's judgment, holding that the current legal position, as clarified in Manhar Sabarwal, Amit Tara, and Delhi Gymkhana Club, prohibits condonation beyond 120 days. The bench rejected the appellants' plea of legal uncertainty, noting that judgments apply retrospectively unless specified otherwise, and accepting prospective application would undermine settled principles. They deemed the suit's nature and chequered history irrelevant to this procedural issue, as no equitable considerations can override a pure legal question. The court observed that the appellants were actively represented by qualified counsel and participated in proceedings, negating claims of impediment. Explanations like Covid-19 disruptions and voluminous documents were unconvincing, given the appellants' resources. The bench agreed with the respondents that non-filing does not prejudice the defense entirely, as cross-examination persists. Ultimately, the analysis upheld the mandatory timelines to promote expeditious justice, aligning with the rules' intent over Code of Civil Procedure analogies.
Final Decision:The appeals were dismissed, with the court finding them devoid of merit. The impugned judgment of the Single Judge was upheld, confirming the closure of the appellants' right to file written statements. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Law Settled in This Case:This case solidifies that under Rules 4 and 5 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, there is no discretion to condone delays in filing written statements beyond 120 days from service of summons in non-commercial suits. It clarifies that perceived distinctions between Rules 4 and 5 are untenable, and principles from Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure or inherent powers cannot be invoked to extend timelines. The decision emphasizes retrospective application of interpretative judgments, rejects equitable pleas based on suit nature or external factors like pandemics unless exceptionally compelling, and affirms that such procedural bars do not render parties defenceless, preserving rights like cross-examination.
Case Title: Shantanu Prakash Vs. Doris Chug Gim Lian
Date of Order: 14.08.2025
Case Number: FAO(OS) 39/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:6845-DB
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Name of Judge: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
