Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 25 CS SCJ 461/25
Prabhjeet Singh Vs. Nisha Devi
CNR No. DLNT030006972025
07.10.2026
Present: Shri Dharamraj Ohlan, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
(Through VC)
Plaintiff in person.
Shri Sumeet, Ld. LAC for the defendant with
defendant.
Matter is listed for arguments on application under
Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Arguments heard.
Put up at 04.00 pm for orders.
(SAKSHI JAISWAL)
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI/DELHI/07.10.2026
At 04.00 pm.
Present: None.
Vide separate order, the application under Order VIII
Rule 1 CPC is allowed. The delay in filing the written statement
is condoned and the written statement filed by the defendant is
taken on record, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the
plaintiff.
Replication be filed within the stipulated period.
Put up for arguments on application u/o 11 rule 12
CPC on 19.01.2027.
(SAKSHI JAISWAL)
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI/DELHI/07.10.2026
-- 1 of 6 --
-1-
25 CS SCJ 461/25
Prabhjeet Singh Vs. Nisha Devi
CNR No. DLNT030006972025
07.10.2026
ORDER
1. By way of the present application under Order VIII Rule 1
of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant seeks condonation
of delay in filing the written statement and taking the same on
record.
2. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that although
summons were actually served upon the defendant on
03.11.2025, as is evident from the report of service available on
record, the defendant appeared before the Court on 20.01.2026
and specifically brought to the notice of the Court that she was
unable to engage counsel on account of her financial condition.
She was accordingly apprised of the availability of legal-aid
services and was directed/referred to the DLSA. It is submitted
that thereafter, upon legal-aid assistance being made available,
the written statement was prepared and filed on 12.02.2026. It is
further submitted that the defendant herself was suffering from
ailments and her husband was also suffering from various
medical conditions and had undergone treatment/surgery, for
which medical documents have been placed on record.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the
application, contending that the defendant has failed to disclose
sufficient cause for not filing the written statement within the
prescribed period. It is submitted that the defendant is aged about
-- 2 of 6 --
-2-
55 years and, therefore, age cannot constitute a ground for
condonation. It is further submitted that proper medical
documents have not been filed in support of the grounds pleaded
in the application. It has also been argued that summons were
ordered to be issued on 16.09.2025 and the process fee was
submitted on 14.10.2025 and, therefore, the defendant ought to
be deemed to have been served within a week thereof. Learned
counsel further submits that in a connected complaint case the
defendant is represented by counsel of her own and, therefore,
her plea that she was unable to engage counsel is not bona fide.
4. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
material available on record.
5. At the outset, the submission of the plaintiff regarding the
date from which the period for filing the written statement is to
be reckoned cannot be accepted. Order VIII Rule 1 CPC
specifically reckons the period from the date of service of
summons. In the present case, the report of service of summons
records service upon the defendant on 03.11.2025. The mere fact
that summons were ordered to be issued on 16.09.2025 or that
process fee was submitted on 14.10.2025 does not, by itself,
establish a deemed date of service upon the defendant.
6. Accordingly, the period for filing the written statement
commenced from 03.11.2025. The written statement was filed on
12.02.2026. The period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.
In an ordinary civil suit, the time schedule under Order VIII Rule
-- 3 of 6 --
-3-
1 CPC is directory and the Court retains discretion, in
exceptional circumstances and for sufficient reasons, to permit a
written statement to be taken on record even beyond the period
prescribed therein.
7. The legal position in this regard was authoritatively
explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku
and Others, (2005) 4 SCC 480. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC prescribing the
time for filing the written statement are directory and not
mandatory in ordinary civil suits. However, the Court also
cautioned that the discretion to extend the time cannot be
exercised routinely or mechanically. Such discretion is to be
exercised only in exceptional situations, where the defendant
establishes sufficient cause and refusal to accept the written
statement would result in grave injustice. The Court further
observed that procedural provisions are intended to advance the
cause of justice and not to defeat it.
8. In the present case, the defendant appeared before the
Court on 20.01.2026, i.e. the date of hearing immediately after
service of summons, and specifically stated that she was not in a
position to engage counsel. The Court itself apprised her of the
availability of legal-aid services and directed her to the DLSA.
Thereafter, the written statement was filed on 12.02.2026, i.e.
shortly after the defendant had approached the legal-aid
mechanism.
-- 4 of 6 --
-4-
9. The medical documents placed on record also show that
the defendant was undergoing treatment during the relevant
period. The medical condition of the husband of the defendant,
by itself, may not constitute sufficient cause for the entire period
of delay; similarly, the age of 55 years cannot by itself be treated
as old age. Nevertheless, these circumstances are required to be
considered cumulatively with the defendant’s own medical
condition, her stated financial inability to engage counsel and her
appearance before the Court on 20.01.2026, whereafter she
approached the legal-aid services.
10. The objection that the defendant had counsel in a
connected complaint case also does not, by itself, conclusively
establish that she had the financial capacity to engage private
counsel in the present proceedings. The said circumstance,
therefore, cannot by itself be treated as sufficient to reject the
present application.
11. There is nothing on record at this stage to indicate a
repeated or deliberate delaying in the proceedings on the account
of the defendant. No substantial prejudice to the plaintiff,
incapable of being compensated by costs, has been demonstrated.
12. In view of the principles laid down in Kailash v. Nanhku
and Others (supra), and considering the facts and circumstances
of the present case, this Court is satisfied that the defendant has
disclosed sufficient and exceptional circumstances warranting
-- 5 of 6 --
-5-
exercise of discretion in her favour. The delay cannot be said to
be deliberate or mala fide.
13. Consequently, the application under Order VIII Rule 1
CPC is allowed. The delay in filing the written statement is
condoned and the written statement filed by the defendant is
taken on record, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the
plaintiff.
14. Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(SAKSHI JAISWAL)
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI/DELHI/07.10.2026
-- 6 of 6 --