Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 16
Civ Suit 273/25
MOHD KASIM Vs. MOHD ARIF
12.03.2026
Present: None for the plaintiff.
None for the defendant.
Put up for orders at 4:00 PM.
Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/12.03.2026
At 4:00 PM
Present: None for the plaintiff.
Sh. Monu Singh kain, Ld. Counsel for the defendant
(Through VC).
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application filed on
behalf of defendant number 1 (hereinafter ‘D1’), namely Mohd.
Arif under Section 5 of Limitation Act, read with Section 151
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter ‘CPC’). Through this
application, D1 seeks condonation of delay in filing Written
Statement (hereinafter ‘WS’).
Grounds taken by D1
2. D1 submits that they received copy of plaint along with
documents on 06.09.2025. Thus, the WS should have been filed
within 30 days therefrom. However, the WS was filed on
08.10.2025. Thus, D1 admits that there was a delay of 2 days and
it is stated to be attributed to some family problems of D1 due to
which appointment with their lawyer could not be procured.
-- 1 of 3 --
Objection by Plaintiff
3. Plaintiff objects to this application on the ground that D1
had filed his WS on 08.10.2025 whereas the application for
condonation of delay was filed on 16.10.2025 and the affidavit in
the support of this application is dated 08.10.2025.
Analysis and Reasons
4. While Order 8 Rule 1 CPC makes it clear that the WS must
be filed within 30 days from date of receiving summons, the time
period is extendable to 90 days from date of service of summons
for reasons to be recorded.
5. D1 has moved application under Section 5 of Limitation
Act to condone the delay. Section 5 limitation act applies to
applications and appeals only. WS is neither an appeal now an
application. Thus Section 5 Limitation Act is not the appropriate
provision for seeking the relief of condoning delay in filing WS.
However, quoting wrong provision is no ground to reject it, if it
otherwise deserves consideration [Nitish Arora Versus State of
Delhi, 2007 (141) DLT 21]. The court has inherent power under
Section 151 CPC to consider the application wherein wrong
provision is quoted. It was held in Vijay Kumar Nagpal Versus
Parveen Kumar Nagpal, CS (OS) 441/2020, that:
11. Regarding the objection raised by
the learned counsel for defendant that
the present application is filed under
Section 151 CPC instead of under Order
IX of CPC. However, under Section 151
of CPC, this Court has inherent power
to consider an application wherein a
-- 2 of 3 --
wrong provision is mentioned. It
cannot be an obstacle for granting the
relief as made out from the contents of
the application as held in Gotham
Entertainment (supra).
xxx xxx xxx
(Emphasis Supplied)
6. Thus, even if the application is filed under Section 5
Limitation Act, this court, can, by virtue of Section 151 CPC
consider it. It is clear that there is a delay of 2 days in filing WS
and delay of 10 days in filing application for condonation delay.
The plaintiff submits that affidavit annexed with application
predates the application is not something which this court is
worried about at this stage, for it would not cause prejudice to
any party.
Conclusion
7. Thus, considering the fact that the window of 90 days is
still available to D1, the interest would be served if the instant
application is allowed subject to cost of Rs. 500 to be paid to
plaintiff by D1 on or before next date of hearing.
8. Accordingly, the WS field by D1 be taken on record.
Matter be listed for filing of replication, if any/admission and
denials/framing of issues on 13.04.2026.
Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/12.03.2026
-- 3 of 3 --