Case Title: Col Ashish Khanna SM Retd. v. Delhi Gymkhana Club and Ors.
Date of Decision: September 5, 2023
Case Number: CS(OS) 171/2022
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
Factual Background
The suit was initiated by the plaintiff, who claimed to be a former secretary of defendant No. 1 (Delhi Gymkhana Club). The plaintiff filed this suit, seeking multiple remedies. The suit was first listed on March 25, 2022, when summons was issued to the defendants. On this date, defendant No. 1 was represented by counsel who accepted the summons and requested leave to file a written statement. Subsequently, the suit was scheduled before the Joint Registrar for the completion of pleadings, admission/denial of documents, and marking of exhibits on May 4, 2022.
However, on several subsequent hearings, defendant No. 1 failed to appear, and the plaintiff filed an application under Order VIII Rules 1 and 10 CPC, stating that the statutory time period for filing a written statement had elapsed. Despite opposition from defendant No. 1, the court passed an order on September 1, 2022, closing the right of defendant No. 1 to file a written statement.
Legal Issues
The primary legal issue in this case revolved around whether the court had the authority to extend the time for filing a written statement beyond the statutory limit of 120 days, as per Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. Additionally, the court had to determine whether Rule 4 was mandatory or directory in nature.
Contentions
- Defendant No. 1 argued that the order closing their right to file a written statement was incorrect and that the defects in the written statement and the application for condonation of delay had been rectified.
- Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Rule 4 of Chapter VII was mandatory, and the court’s power to condone delay beyond the statutory limit was limited to 120 days.
Observation and Analysis
The court analyzed the relevant rules and previous decisions on this matter. It considered the distinction between Rules 4 and 5 of Chapter VII of the DHC Rules and whether the expression “but not thereafter” in Rule 4 made it mandatory. The court also examined the precedents set by earlier judgments, such as Gautam Gambhir & Ors. v. Jai Ambey Traders & Ors. (2020), Harjyot Singh v. Mrs. Manpreet Singh (2021), Ram Swarup Lugani & Anr. v. Nirmal Lugani & Ors. (2020), and Charu Agrawal v. Alok Kalia & Ors. (2023).
Decision and Conclusion
The court held that the decision in Charu had definitively resolved the debate on the court’s ability to condone delay in filing a written statement beyond 120 days in non-commercial suits. Rule 4 was found to be mandatory, and the court’s power to condone delay was limited to 120 days. Consequently, the chamber appeal was dismissed, and the application for condonation of delay was also rejected.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by – Ananya Chaudhary
