Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 41 CS SCJ 1057/22
SMT GEETA DEVI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
20.02.2026
Present: None for plaintiff.
Ms. Promila Kapoor, Counsel for defendant.
1. Matter is pending for order on application for condonation of
delay in filing the WS.
2. Briefly stated, on 14.02.2023, summons were issued to the
defendant and the same was received back as served on 27.03.2023.
Thereafter, on 16.05.2023, defendant entered appearance through
Counsel and Memo of Appearance was filed. However, no WS was
filed despite opportunity on 20.09.2023. Thereafter, on 25.11.2023,
Counsel for defendant stated that she is unable to trace the copy of
plaint and sought time to file WS. Subsequently, again, copy was
supplied on 27.03.2024 but no WS was filed till the next date of
hearing i.e. 20.08.2024 as well. Subsequently, on 04.10.2024, the WS
was filed by way of e-filing but the same was not accompanied by any
application for condonation of delay. Subsequently, on 19.08.2025, the
present application was filed.
3. By way of present application, it is pleaded that the complete
set of documents was served upon the defendant on 27.03.2024 and
thereafter, the same was sent by the counsel to the concerned
Page No. 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
department/defendant for obtaining comments and seeking the
documents relied upon. It is stated that the said comments were sent by
the department on 16.04.2024 and thereafter, the counsel drafted the
WS and sent the file for approval and vetting on 13.05.2024.
Subsequently, it is pleaded that the concerned official, approved the
WS on 07.06.2024 but the file got mixed up with the other files of the
department and the same was traced on 18.09.2024 and thereafter, the
WS has been e-filed on 04.10.2024. Hence, it is stated that there was
delay of 05 months and 07 days (after deducting 30 days from the date
of supply of documents on 27.03.2024) due to unfortunate and
unavoidable events. Hence, it is pleaded that the delay is
unintentional and the same may be condoned. It is stated that the
suit property involves valuable public land and liberal view may be
taken for deciding the matter on merits in the larger interest of public
at large. Accordingly, it is prayed that the delay may be condoned and
the WS may be taken on record.
4. Per contra, no written reply was filed by the plaintiff.
However, it is submitted that the defendant has failed to show any
sufficient cause. It is also stated that the report of service of summons
shows that the summons along with copy of the petition has been
supplied and therefore, the delay is much more than that of 05 months
and 07 days. Accordingly, it is prayed that the defence may be struck
off.
Page No. 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
5. I have already heard the arguments and perused the record. At
the outset it is stated that the case laws stated by the parties wherein
the Hon’ble Superior Courts have laid down the principles with respect
to condonation of delay are not in dispute. However, each case has its
own distinguishing facts and therefore, each matter has to be decided
in its own factual background. Hence, I proceed to consider the
contentions of the parties in the factual matrix of present case.
6. In the present matter, perusal of service report shows that the
summons specifically bears the endorsement that the copy of the
petition has been enclosed. Further, as per the report of the process
server as well, notice along with copy had been supplied and the said
report has been verified on oath by the process server. Moreover, in the
entire application, the said report has not been disputed. It is also
pertinent to note that the counsel for defendant appeared before the
Court on 16.05.2023 and 20.09.2023 as well but no submission was
made qua the non-supply of the plaint. Furthermore, as per the
submission made by the counsel for defendant on 25.11.2023, it was
stated that she is unable to trace the copy of the plaint. Therefore, the
factum of supply of plaint was not disputed. Thus, the service stood
complete on 27.03.2023 and therefore, the WS had to be filed
within the stipulated period from the said date.
7. However, even if, the version of the defendant is taken to be
correct for the sake of arguments, even then the defendant was casual
Page No. 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
in its approach and did not file the WS within the stipulated period
from 27.03.2024 i.e. when the copy of plaint was supplied afresh. In
the present case, it is also relevant to note that the reasons for
condonation of delay qua the file being misplaced and delay on the
part of the department to approve the WS were not pleaded at the time
of filing of the WS but have been filed at a later stage. The WS was e-
filed on 04.10.2024. However, roughly an year after the said date,
the present application for condonation of delay was filed on
19.08.2025. Hence, the said conduct shows that bald averments have
been made as an afterthought to justify the lackadaisical and dilatory
conduct of the defendant. It is pertinent to note that even on receiving
the documents on 27.03.2024, the draft WS was prepared by
13.05.2024 only i.e. beyond the period of 30 days. Furthermore, the
said WS was also approved as per the pleadings on 07.06.2024 and
remained pending with the concerned department for more than 20
days. Thereafter, simply it has been averred that the file got misplaced
and was traced on 18.09.2024. Even after tracing the file on
18.09.2024, again the matter was kept pending by the concerned
department/defendant till 04.10.2024 for filing the WS.
8. Thus, from the said conduct, it is apparent that bald averments
have been made. However, neither any complaint with specific
allegations against the concerned official/Counsel who negligently
handled the file have been brought to the notice of this Court nor is
stated to have been made. It is also pertinent to note that at one end, it
Page No. 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
is being pleaded by the defendant that valuable public land involving
the interest of public at large is involved in the present case, but
simultaneously, the matter is handled by the concerned
department/defendant in a negligent and careless manner.
9. Accordingly, the defendant now cannot plead that the
matter may be considered on merits when defendant has lost the right
to be heard on merits because of its own inaction. In this regard, I find
it relevant to refer to the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Civil Appeal No. 317/2015 titled as “H.Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A.
Krishnaiah Since deceased by LRs” dated 08.01.2025;
“16…. While considering the plea for condonation
of delay, the court must not start with the merits of
the main matter. The court owes a duty to first
ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered
by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the
sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the
opposition of the other side is equally balanced
that the court may bring into aid the merits of the
matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.
17. We are of the view that the question of
limitation is not merely a technical consideration.
The rules of limitation are based on the principles
of sound public policy and principles of equity. No
court should keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging
over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of
time.”
10. Thus, the application is hit by latches on the part of
applicant/defendant. Time and again, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
Page No. 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
observed that the concepts as such “liberal approach”, “Justice
oriented approach”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to
frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation.
11. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion and findings,
application for condonation of delay stands dismissed and the
defence of the defendant is hereby struck off. It is however clarified
that nothing expressed herein shall tantamount to final opinion on the
merits of the case.
12. List for PE on 02.06.2026 at 11:30 AM.
Sh. Rupinder Singh Dhiman
ACJ/CCJ/ARC, NDD, PHC
New Delhi :20.02.2026
Page No. 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --