Interim Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS SCJ 252/24
Page no.1 of 4
32 CS SCJ 252/24
Dinesh Kumar Dabas Vs. Suresh Dabas
22.01.2026
Present: Sh. J.V. Rana, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Jatin Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for defendant.
1. Vide this order I shall decide the application under order 8 rule 1
CPC filed by the defendant seeking condonation of delay in filing
of WS.
2. It is stated by the counsel for the defendant that the defendant no.1
is of old age and is a retired government official. It is stated that
initially incomplete documents were supplied to the defendant and
the complete documents were supplied by the plaintiff only on
18.07.2025. thereafter Due to the old age, the defendant could not
see whether the pages supplied are legible or not. It is further
stated that in order to prepare the written statement, the defendant
had relied upon various documents which are voluminous in
nature and the same had to be collected through various forum
including RTI, certified copy etc. Hence there is a delay in filing
of WS. Ld. Counsel for the defendant/applicant has placed
reliance upon the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in
Desh Raj vs Balkishan (D) Through Proposed Lr
Ms. Rohini.
3. Per contra ld. counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the present
application is liable to be dismissed on its face as there is a delay
of more than 183 days from the date of supplying of complete
documents to the satisfaction of the defendant till the filing of this
-- 1 of 4 --
CS SCJ 252/24
Page no.2 of 4
application. It is argued that the defendant had entered appearance
on 27.07.2024 and vide order dated 18.07.2025, time was granted
to him to file WS however the same has not been field yet. Also,
it has been argued that this court is bound by the statutory period
of limitation of 120 days in filing of WS and the delay beyond that
cannot be condoned. Hence, the defendant should not be allowed
to file WS at this stage. Ld. Counsel has placed his reliance upon
the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled
as “
Gautam Gambhir Vs. Jai Ambey Traders & Ors 2020 SCC
Online Del 2621” and “
Harjyot Singh V. Manpreet Kaur 2021
AIR CC 1786”
4. The time limit prescribed by order VIII rule 1 CPC for filing of a
WS is of 30 days from the date of service of summons which can
be further extended up to a period of 90 days as per the proviso.
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff had argued that as per the Delhi High
Court (Original Side) Rules 1967, there is an express bar in filing
of WS after a period of 120 days which cannot be condoned.
5. The ld. Counsel for defendant had argued that the said rules are
applicable to the disputes which are being dealt by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi at Original Side and the same shall not be
applicable to the proceedings of the present case.
6. Submissions Heard. Record Perused.
7. Section 3 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules
1967, states that
“All proceedings on the original side of the Court
instituted or transferred pursuant to provisions of the Delhi High
Court Act of 1966 or any other law shall unless otherwise ordered
-- 2 of 4 --
CS SCJ 252/24
Page no.3 of 4
by the Court be governed by these Rules” which makes it clear
that the said bar of 120 days is applicable for the proceedings
before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Original Side
Jurisdiction and is not “mandatory” for the proceedings before this
court.
8. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as
“Desh Raj vs Balkishan (D) Through Proposed Lr Ms. Rohini
CIVIL APPEAL NO.433 OF 2020” has held that:
“14. As regard the timeline for filing of written
statement in a non- commercial dispute, the
observations of this Court in a catena of
decisions, most recently in Atcom Technologies
Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala and Co., 4 holds the
field. Unamended Order VIII Rule
I, CPC continues to be directory and does not do
away with the inherent discretion of Courts to
condone certain delays.”
9. Now, in order to get the delay condoned, the defendant must show
a cogent reason sufficiently explaining the day-to-day delay. In the
present case, the defendant has taken a plea of old age of the
defendant and has also averred that certain documents had to be
relied by the defendant to prepare the WS and the said documents
were obtained through RTI, certified copy etc. The reasons for
delay as stated by the defendant are those which were beyond the
control of the defendant.
10. Accordingly, in view of the abovementioned discussion, the law
laid down in “Kailash V. Nankhu & Ors. reported in (2005) 4 SCC
480.” and “Bharat Kalra vs Raj Kishan Chabra CIVIL APPEAL
-- 3 of 4 --
CS SCJ 252/24
Page no.4 of 4
NO.3788 OF 2022” and in the interest of justice, this Court is of
the view that there should always be an attempt to decide a case
on its merits, unless the same is hopelessly without merit.
11. Hence the present application is allowed. However, considering
the period of delay and the conduct of the defendant, the delay is
condoned subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the
defendant/ applicant to the plaintiff and with the directions, that
the WS be filed by way of last and final opportunity within 7 days
from today with advance copy to the plaintiff.
12. Be put up for completion of pleadings/ arguments on application
under order 39 rule 1 and 2 for 05.02.2026 .
(Vaibhav Kumar)
Civil Judge-N/W District
Rohini Courts-22.01.2026
-- 4 of 4 --