Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 18 CS DJ 338/26 DELHI JAL BOARD Vs. TATA POWER DELHI
DISTRIBUTION LTD.
15.10.2026.
Present : Mr. Naresh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Ms. Mahima Bajaj, Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
Mr. Rohit, Jr. Asst. for Delhi Jal Board in person.
Written statement alongwith affidavit of admission/denial and
application under Order 8 Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC is filed. Copy is
supplied.
Heard. Record perused.
As per the record, defendant was served with the summons of
settlement of issues on 23.06.2026. So definitely, the written statement is
filed beyond the statutory period but it is not disputed that it has been filed
within 90 days. No prejudice is likely to be caused to the plaintiff if the same
is taken on record. On the other hand, it would only allow the controversies
between the parties to be decided as a whole. In “Bharat Kalra Versus Raj
Kishan Chabra”, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 613 referring “Kailash Vs. Nankhu &
Ors (2005) 4 SCC 480, it is held by Hon’ble Apex Court that suit is not the
one which is governed by the commercial Court Act, 2015, therefore, the time
limit for filing of the written statement under order 8 Rule 1 CPC is not
mandatory. Accordingly condoning the delay, written statement is hereby
taken on record. Let replication, if any, be filed after supplying advance copy
to the opposite counsel against acknowledgment.
An application under under Section 151 CPC is also filed on
behalf of plaintiff for compliance of order of Hon’ble Dehi High Court.
Now, put up for appearance of parties/filing of
replication/admission and denial of the documents, if any/ examination u/o 10
CPC/exploration of the chances of resolution of dispute by alternate mode u/o
89 CPC and for consideration for issues for 03.12.2026.
(Aanchal)
District Judge-03, Rohini Courts
North District, Delhi
15.10.2026(amt)
-- 1 of 1 --