LI Network
Published on: 23 August 2023 at 12:45 IST
In a recent reaffirmation of legal norms, the Delhi High Court reiterated that in a non-commercial suit, the submission of a written statement must occur within 120 days from the date of summons being served.
The Court underscored the constraint imposed by Rule 4 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (DHC Rules) on its power to grant leniency for delays exceeding this stipulated duration.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri made this observation while endorsing the decision of a Joint Registrar to close the right of Delhi Gymkhana Club to file a written statement in a non-commercial suit.
The judgment noted that a Division Bench in Charu Agrawal v. Alok Kalia & Ors had “very emphatically held the inviolability of the hard stop period of 120 days prescribed in Rule 4 for filing the written statement.”
“As of now, Charu (Supra) has laid to rest the debate on the ability of courts to condone delay in filing of written statement beyond 120 days in a non-commercial suit. Rule 4 circumscribes the power of court to condone the delay beyond the maximum permissible time of 120 days,” the judgment stated.
The case pertained to a suit initiated by retired Colonel Ashish Khanna, former Secretary of the Delhi Gymkhana Club. In 2022, he challenged his termination from the Club in August 2020.
On March 25 of the prior year, the Court issued summons to the Club. When the matter was listed before the Joint Registrar on May 4, 2022, for the completion of pleadings, the Club was unrepresented.
On May 31, 2022, the Club’s counsel informed the Court that the Central government had nominated 15 individuals to manage its affairs, but they had not yet taken charge.
Upon listing the suit again on July 12, 2022, the Joint Registrar observed that the Club had not filed a written statement.
On September 1, 2022, an application by Colonel Khanna under Order VIII, Rules 1 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was presented.
The Joint Registrar concluded that the statutory 120-day period for filing a written statement had expired, thus closing the Club’s right to file one.
Justice Ohri noted that the interpretation of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC in relation to Rule 4 and 5 of the DHC Rules was discussed in Gautam Gambhir & Ors v. Jai Ambey Traders & Ors and Ram Sarup Lugani & Anr. v. Nirmal Lugani & Ors.
He observed, “The Court taking note of the fact that the DHC Rules came into effect in 2018 i.e., after the Commercial Courts Act was notified, opined that use of expression ‘but not thereafter’ in Rule 4 would mean that a total 120 days (30 + 90) was granted for filing written statement. Further, both Rules 4 and 5 were held to be mandatory.”
Justice Ohri further noted that in Ram Sarup Lugani, a Division Bench interpreted the scope and purpose of Chapter VII of the DHC Rules, concluding that ‘but not thereafter’ in Rule 5 indicated the intention to make the provision mandatory, not discretionary.
Consequently, the Court upheld the Joint Registrar’s decision against the Club, deeming it in line with the law and previous High Court decisions.
As a result, the Club’s chamber appeal and application to extend the delay in filing its written statement were dismissed.