Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 5
CS SCJ 1615/24
ANIL KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. SURESH KUMARI AND ANR
19.08.2025
Present: Sh. Pardeep, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff (through VC).
Sh. Vikas Kumar, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1.
Matter is at the stage of appearance of defendants/completion of pleadings.
Today, WS has been filed on behalf of the defendant no. 1 along with an
application for condonation of delay. Same be taken on record.
Arguments heard on the application for condonation of delay.
This court is of the opinion that in an adversarial trial, no party should ordinarily
be denied right to participate in justice delivery system. Further, it is settled law that time limit
for filing written statement u/O 8 Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory in view of judgment in Kailash
Vs. Nankhu & Ors (2005) 4SCC 480. In the aforesaid judgment, it is reiterated that delay in
filing the WS can very well be compensated with cost but denying the benefit of filing the same
would be unreasonable.
It is also settled law that court should make all endeavour to decide the matter on
merits. However, the plaintiff has to be compensated for the time lost.
In view of the above discussion and in the interest of justice, the delay in filing of
WS is condoned, subject to cost of Rs. 500/- on defendant to be paid to the plaintiff on the
NDOH. WS is taken on record.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff seeks time to file the replication. Time granted till
NDOH.
Summons could not be issued to defendant no. 2 as steps not taken by the
plaintiff. Issue fresh summons to defendant no. 2 through all modes including e-modes on filing
of PF/RC/Speed post within two weeks returnable on 11.12.2025.
(Arjun Kirar)
Civil Judge-N/W District
Rohini Courts-19.08.2025
-- 1 of 1 --