'Lenient' Approach For Condoning Delay In Filing Written Statement Will Frustrate Purpose Of CPC: Delhi High Court

Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that such an approach will defeat the purpose of the CPC (Amendment) Act 2002, which introduced timelines for filing of WS. The bench said,

“I am unable to accept the argument of learned counsel for petitioner that for condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement the courts must take lenient view. Such an approach would make the provisions under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC completely otiose and frustrate the basic purpose behind amendment of Civil Procedure Code, carried out in the year 2002.”

Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC provides that the Defendant shall present his written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons, with a maximum extension of up to 90 days.

The Court was dealing with a petition preferred by the original defendant, against trial court order refusing to condone delay in filing WS to Respondent's suit.

Petitioner attributed the delay to time elapsed in obtaining certified copies pertaining to another litigation, which record was purportedly relevant for preparing the WS.

In any case, the Petitioner argued that since the WS was brought within 120 days of service of summons, the trial court ought to have taken a lenient view and ought to have condoned the delay.

The High Court agreed that even 90 days after service of summons, the court is not powerless to condone delay in filing the Written Statement, but, it cautioned, that has to be done only in exceptional circumstances.

In the present case, the circumstances set up by the petitioner to explain the delay, the Court said, cannot at all be taken as exceptional circumstances to explain the delay in filing the Written Statement.

“Those documents were at the most a piece of evidence and not the facts to be pleaded in the Written Statement. The petitioner could have pleaded only to the extent that plaintiff no. 1 was not a lawful attorney of plaintiff no. 2 for filing of the suit. Besides, nothing prevented the present petitioner from taking inspection of the documents of the other suit in order to ensure that the Written Statement was filed in time, instead of waiting for certified copies,” it said.

As such, it dismissed the plea.

Appearance: Mr. Vijay Kinger and Mr. Digvejender Sharma, Advocates for Petitioner

Case title: Sh. Kewal Krishan v. Sh. Gulshan Kumar & Ors.

Case no.: CM(M) 1806/2025

Click here to read order