Supreme Court Rebukes RBI for Remaining a Bystander as YES Bank Operated Clandestinely  ||  Supreme Court: Lower Fresh Bids Alone Cannot Justify Cancellation of an Auction  ||  Supreme Court Directs Delhi Police to Produce Section 163 BNSS Orders and Preserve CCTV Footage  ||  Supreme Court Affirms Menstrual Hygiene as a Fundamental Right, Warns States of Contempt  ||  Supreme Court Flags AI-Generated Fake Judgments Submitted in a Party’s Case Compilation  ||  Karnataka High Court: Vijay Mallya’s Flamboyant Lifestyle Hinders Settlement of Bank Claims  ||  Delhi High Court: Women can be Booked for Gang Rape without Physically Committing it  ||  Delhi High Court: Litigants Must Track Their Cases and Cannot Blame Lawyers for Their Own Inaction  ||  Allahabad High Court: Contract Workers Must Prove Work Parity With Regular Staff for Equal Pay  ||  Allahabad High Court Directs UP Trial Courts to Decide Maintenance Execution Cases Within Six Months    

Jitender Kumar Kushwaha vs. Albert Joseph & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:2900) - (High Court of Delhi) (10 Apr 2024)

Time limit for filing the written statement is only directory and not mandatoryin non- commercial suits

MANU/DE/2710/2024

Civil

The present petition assails the impugned orders passed by Trial Courtwhereby the learned trial court did not take on record the written statement of the Petitioner in absence of any application for condonation of delay and subsequently, after filing the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of limitation Act along with an application under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the same were dismissed thereafter.

Trial Court vide order had issued summons to the petitioner. The Petitioner entered appearance and requested for time to file the written statement, acceding to the request, the learned Trial Court granted 30 days time to the petitioner to file the written statement in the suit.

Notably, the time limit granted by the learned Trial Court to the Petitioner to file written statement expired on 4th August, 2022, being the 30th day, however, the Petitioner filed his written statement on 12th August, 2022 with a delay of eight days. Moreso, without an application seeking condonation of delay explaining the reasons caused for such delay. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court vide order took the written statement off the record.

The position of law is well settled and is no longer res-integra as held by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments that, in non- commercial suits, the time limit for filing the written statement is only directory and not mandatory. Furthermore, it is trite in law that the rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and the Court should aim to do substantial justice in a given matter, provided that the other party can be well compensated in terms of order of cost.

In view of the discussion and in the peculiar facts of this case, the written statement is allowed to be taken on record, subject to cost of Rs. 5,000 to be paid to the Respondent no. 1 before the learned Trial Court on the next date of hearing. Petition disposed of.

Tags : WRITTEN STATEMENT   TIME LIMIT   EXTENSION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved