Interim Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 17 CS SCJ 426-24
BRIJ BIHARI PATHAK Vs. C NET INFOTECH PVT. LTD.
08.10.2026
Present: Mr. Inder Singh, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Harshit Jain, Learned Counsel for the Defendant
No.1 through VC.
Defendant No.2 is already proceeded ex-parte by
order dated 07.12.2024.
1. Arguments are heard on the applications by
Defendant No. 1 under Section 5 Limitation Act to condone the
delay in filing the WS and under Section 114 CPC to review the
order by which right to file WS was closed.
2. After some arguments, the application under Section
114 CPC is sought to be withdrawn. It is accordingly dismissed
as withdrawn.
3. As per the application for condonation of delay, the
Defendant fell ill and under went medical treatment so could not
attend to legal matters. Upon recovery, the WS was filed.
4. Plaintiff opposes the same by stating that even the
number of days of delay is not mentioned and the grounds are
vague and generic.
5. D-1 appeared on 26.07.2025 and the right to file WS
was closed on 23.01.2026 and the WS was finally filed on
25.04.2026. The delay is of 273 days.
6. Defendant No. 1/Applicant has not even mentioned
any dates pertaining to his illness or when he was bedridden.
7. Even the illness has not been described.
8. The law and principles with regard to condonation
Contd...
-- 1 of 4 --
- 2 -
of delay in filing of WS have been well settled and can be seen
from the following case law:
9. Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India,
(2005) 6 SCC 344:
“21. . . . Having said so, we wish to make it clear that the order
extending time to file written statement cannot be made in
routine. The time can be extended only in exceptionally hard
cases. While extending time, it has to be borne in mind that the
legislature has fixed the upper time-limit of 90 days. The
discretion of the court to extend the time shall not be so
frequently and routinely exercised so as to nullify the period
fixed by Order 8 Rule 1.”
Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480:
“41. Considering the object and purpose behind enacting Rule 1
of Order 8 in the present form and the context in which the
provision is placed, we are of the opinion that the provision has
to be construed as directory and not mandatory. In exceptional
situations, the court may extend the time for filing the written
statement though the period of 30 days and 90 days, referred to
in the provision, has expired. However, we may not be
misunderstood as nullifying the entire force and impact — the
entire life and vigour — of the provision. The delaying tactics
adopted by the defendants in law courts are now proverbial as
they do stand to gain by delay. This is more so in election
disputes because by delaying the trial of election petition, the
successful candidate may succeed in enjoying the substantial
part, if not in its entirety, the term for which he was elected even
though he may lose the battle at the end. Therefore, the judge
trying the case must handle the prayer for adjournment with
firmness. The defendant seeking extension of time beyond the
limits laid down by the provision may not ordinarily be shown
indulgence.
XXX
44. The extension of time shall be only by way of exception and
for reasons to be recorded in writing, howsoever brief they may
be, by the court. In no case, shall the defendant be permitted to
seek extension of time when the court is satisfied that it is a
case of laxity or gross negligence on the part of the defendant
or his counsel. The court may impose costs for dual purpose: (i)
Contd...
-- 2 of 4 --
- 3 -
to deter the defendant from seeking any extension of time just for
the asking, and (ii) to compensate the plaintiff for the delay and
inconvenience caused to him.”
Ramesh Flowers (P) Ltd. v. Sumit Srimal, 2024
SCC OnLine Mad 4785:
“11. CPC was amended in 2002. Salem Bar Association
decision was rendered in 2005. We have travelled quite some
distance since then. Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 contain stiff deadlines.
There is an interesting article “Adhering to Statutory Timelines :
A Step Towards Better Case Management of Civil Trials” by
Hasit B. Seth (2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 6) dealing with the
culture of delay in filing of pleadings in courts. The author says
that the situation can be remedied only by strict enforcement of
the time lines. He laments “despite the courts cautioning all
along that relaxation of time limit under Order 8 Rule 1 must
be exceptional, nearly universal forgiveness of delays in Wing
written statements has become the norm with cost imposed at
times”.
Kewal Krishan v. Gulshan Kumar,
2025:DHC:8097:
“9. 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. The legal position qua approach of the trial court while
dealing with an application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC has
already been described above.”
10. Thus, the unmistakable principles that bind this
Court, as can be culled out from the above authoritative
precedents are that the order condoning delay beyond 90 days
must be passed only in extraordinary circumstances beyond the
control of the Defendant. Undue leniency will frustrate the
purpose of the amendment in CPC. “In no case” should the Court
Contd...
-- 3 of 4 --
- 4 -
condone delay where the Defendant or his counsel are found to
have shown laxity or negligence.
11. If sufficient cause is shown, even long delay may be
condoned and in absence thereof, even the shortest period of
even a day may not find favour.
12. The application has been filed in such a casual
manner that even the number of days of delay has not been
mentioned.
13. Even if the case were to be considered
sympathetically on merits, the Applicant has given no material to
allow the application at all.
In view of what is discussed above and due to the lack of
bonafides, the cause shown is not sufficient at all and the reason
for delay is nothing but laxity and negligence and so there is no
merit in the application.
14. Accordingly, the application by Defendants
seeking condonation of delay in filing the WS under Order 8
Rule 1 CPC stands dismissed.
15. List for ex-parte PE on 14.12.2026.
(VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH)
Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts
New Delhi District, Delhi
08.10.2026
-- 4 of 4 --