Interim Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Civ Suit 468/25
ARIF HUSSAIN Vs. NASIMA KHATOON
Page 1/3
15 Civ Suit 468/25
ARIF HUSSAIN Vs. NASIMA KHATOON
31.07.2026
Present: Mohd. Akaram, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Abbas Khan, Ld. Counsel for the defendant along with defendant.
Reply to the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC filed. Copy
supplied.
Put up for orders at 04:00 pm.
Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/31.07.2026
At 04:00 PM.
Present: None.
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application filed on behalf of defendant
namely Nasima Khatoon under Order 8 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (hereinafter ‘CPC’). Through this application, defendant seeks
condonation of delay in filing Written Statement (hereinafter ‘WS’).
Grounds taken by defendant
2. Defendant submits that WS could nto be filed within stipulated time
because the matter was referred to the Mediation for 15.12.2025 which
was finally returned back as unsettled on 22.12.2025 and listed befor
ethie court on 14.01.2026. Thereafter, the matter was again referred to
Mediation and again the same was unsettled on 20.03.2026 and listed
before this court on 06.04.2026. After exhausting the Mediation
Proceedings, defendant had filed WS on 04.04.2026. The non-filing of
-- 1 of 3 --
Civ Suit 468/25
ARIF HUSSAIN Vs. NASIMA KHATOON
Page 2/3
WS was not deliberate but the same was delayed only because the
defendant was earnestly pursuing mediation.
Objection by Plaintiff
3. Plaintiff has objected to this application on the ground that defendant had
filed WS with intentional delay only to prolong the proceedings and to
harass the plaintiff. Hence, the instant application should not be allowed.
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. In the present case, the summons was received by the defendant on
06.11.2025 and the copy of complaint along with documents was
supplied to the defendant on 08.12.2025. Therefore, the WS should have
been filed by defendant on or before 09.01.2026. As per the extendable
time limit, the same should have been filed on or before 09.03.2026.
However, the WS was filed on 04.04.2026 i.e. after the expiry of 30 days
starting from the expiry of 90 days. It is a settled law that pendency of
mediation proceedings does not preclude or dispense with the requirment
of filing WS within 30 days hence, the ground taken by the defendant is
not prima facie sound. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had
held in
Saleem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India, (2005) 6
SCC 344 and Kailash Vs. Nankhu (2005) 4 SCC 480 that the direction
regarding 90 days is directory and not mandatory and the court may
permit filing WS even after 90 days if circumstances are justifiable.
-- 2 of 3 --
Civ Suit 468/25
ARIF HUSSAIN Vs. NASIMA KHATOON
Page 3/3
6. In the present case, the perusal of the record would reveal that defendant
had been appearing regularly before this Court and before the Mediation
which shows that there is no deliberate attempt on the part of defendant to
delay or defeat the proceedings. Further, it shall be in the interest of
justice, if the case is heard on merits and both the parties are given a fair
opportunity to contest the case.
Conclusion
7. Thus, for the reasons mentioned above, the instant application is allowed
subject however to the cost of Rs. 1500/- to be paid by the defendant to
the plaintiff on or before next date of hearing against acknowledgment.
8. Accordingly, the WS filed by defendant be taken on record on payment of
cost.
9. Matter be listed for arguments on application u/O 12 Rule 6 CPC on
21.08.2026.
Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/31.07.2026
-- 3 of 3 --