Order 18

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 26 CS SCJ 184/25
Kusum Arora
Vs.
Kuldeep Singh Mann
01.04.2026
Present : Sh. Lokesh Sharma, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
Mr. B. Khan, Ld. counsel for defendants with
defendant no. 2 in person.
ORDER
1. Vide this order, the court shall decide whether the
defendant no.1 has filed the written statement within the
limitation period provided in the CPC.
2. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the service on the
defendant no.1 was effected on 20.05.25, and the written
statement was e-filed by the defendant no.1 on 24.11.25,
and the hardcopy of the same was filed on 28.01.26
without even moving any application seeking condonation
of delay in filing of WS.
3. On the other hand, it is submitted by the defendant that the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was pending
adjudication, and the defendant was under the impression
that the application for ejection of plaint would be decided
first and then the limitation to file the WS would start.
CS SCJ 184/25
Kusum Arora Vs. Kuldeep Singh Mann
Page no. 1 / 5
-- 1 of 5 --
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/S SCG
CONTRACTS INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. K.S.
CHAMANKAR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. &
ORS. (2019) 12 SCC 210 observed in para 14 which is as
follows -
“14. ……..Order VII Rule 11 proceedings are independent of
the filing of a written statement once a suit has been filed. In
fact, para 6 of that judgment records “However, we may hasten
to add that the liberty to file an application for rejection under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot be made as a ruse for retrieving the
lost opportunity to file the written statement.”
5. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in ZENITH VIPERS
SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. JASMEET SINGH
MARWAH, CM(M) 900/2025 & CM APPL. 29342-
29344/2025, while relying upon the judgment of The
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/S SCG
CONTRACTS INDIA PVT. LTD. v.s K.S.
CHAMANKAR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. &
ORS. (2019) 12 SCC 210 held in para 18 that -
“18. Merely, because an application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC has been filed and is pending adjudication would not Ipso
facto extend the period of limitation meant for filing of written
statement.”
6. Again, The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in SHYAM
SUNDER v. SHIKHA ARORA & ANR., C.R.P. 63/2020
& CM APPL. 23570/2020, held in para 7 of the judgment
that-
CS SCJ 184/25
Kusum Arora Vs. Kuldeep Singh Mann
Page no. 2 / 5
-- 2 of 5 --
“A perusal of the impugned order shows that the time for filing
of the written statement has been granted without taking into
consideration the provisions of Order VIII CPC. Under the
provisions of Order VIII CPC, non-filing of the written
statement within time entails consequences in law. The
pendency of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, does
not operate as an automatic stay upon filing of the written
statement. In fact, the settled legal position is that the written
statement should be filed irrespective of an application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC being pending.”
7. Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC),
1908, mandates that a defendant must file their written
statement within 30 days of receiving summons and court
may extend this period for reasons recorded in writing, but
it cannot exceed 90 days from the service of summons.
8. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in VINEET ANAND
THROUGH SPA HOLDER v. KIRAN ANAND AND
SONS HUF THROUGH KARTA & ANR. held that -
“12. Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC requires a defendant to file
written statement within 30 days of service of summons.
13. The said period of 30 days is extendable by a further period
of 60 days under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1, for reasons
to be recorded in writing.
14. The statutorily envisaged maximum period 90 days has
been held, by the Supreme Court, in Rani Kusum v. Kanchan
Devi and Kailash v. Nanhku not to be mandatory and relaxable
in a appropriate case. However, such relaxation, as per Kailash,
is to intended to cater to “extraordinary situations in the ends
of justice’.”
9. While addressing arguments, the defendant relied upon the
judgment of The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in R K
Roja vs U S Rayudu & Anr, 2016 wherein the court held
that -
“once an application is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the
CS SCJ 184/25
Kusum Arora Vs. Kuldeep Singh Mann
Page no. 3 / 5
-- 3 of 5 --
CPC, the court has to dispose of the same before proceeding with
the trial. There is no point or sense in proceeding with the trial of the
case, in case the plaint (Election Petition in the present case) is only
to be rejected at the threshold. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to
file the application for rejection before filing his written statement.”
10. The court, in the same judgment, subsequently observed
that -
“However, we may hasten to add that the liberty to file an
application for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC cannot
be made as a ruse for retrieving the lost opportunity to file the
written statement.”
11. In the present case, the defendant no.1 had entered in
appearance on 14.07.25 and instead of filing the written
statement, moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC which was dismissed on 09.10.25. Subsequently, the
defendant no.1 e-filed the WS on 24.11.25 and filed the
hard copy of the same on 28.01.26. It is submitted by the
defendant that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
was pending adjudication, and the defendant was under the
impression that the application for rejection of plaint
would be decided first and then the limitation to file the
WS would start. The defendant no.1 should have filed its
defence/written statement within the statutory period of 30
days extendable by a further period of 60 days. From the
date of appearance i.e. 14.07.25, more than 120 days had
lapsed before the defendant no.1 e-filed the written
statement i.e. 24.11.25. Even further, the defendant no.1
did not move any application seeking condonation of delay
CS SCJ 184/25
Kusum Arora Vs. Kuldeep Singh Mann
Page no. 4 / 5
-- 4 of 5 --
in filing of the Written statement and filed the WS as a
matter of right.
12. In view of the facts of the case and judgments discussed
above, the right of the defendant no.1 to file the WS is
hereby closed and the written statement, if any, already
filed on record by the defendant no.1 is taken off record.
13. Now, put up for further proceedings on 10.04.2026.
(Sahil Gupta)
CJ-07(C)/THC/Delhi/01.04.2026
CS SCJ 184/25
Kusum Arora Vs. Kuldeep Singh Mann
Page no. 5 / 5
-- 5 of 5 --