Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
& CM APPL. 12134/2025 SH. NATHOO RAM JOLLY & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. G.S. Narula, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Mayur Singhal, Advocate along with respondent in person.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 21st November, 2023 passed by the learned Trial Court in CS No. 327/2022, whereby the application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement has been allowed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures, which is against the facts and law. The application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC has been moved on behalf of the respondent with a mala fide intention to delay the proceedings of the case. The respondent has filed the written statement after 229 days without any plausible explanation for the inordinate delay. The reasons mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay are frivolous and baseless. The documents on the basis of which condonation of delay in filing the written statement was sought were already in possession of the respondent even prior to the receipt of summons. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The delay in filing the written statement was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to lack of material documents which were necessary for the preparation of the written statement and also due to the change of her counsel. The petition is liable to be dismissed as it is devoid of merits.
6. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 21st November 2023, reads as under:
10. In the aforesaid backdrop, this court is of the considered view that valuable right of the defendant should not be defeated by declining to condone the delay which has occurred for the inaction on the part of his advocate. Accordingly the court is inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the defendant. However, with some exemplary cost.
11. For the above discussion and observation the present application is allowed accordingly. WS filed on behalf of the defendant is taken on record subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff. Accordingly, application Under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for seeking condonation of delay in filing of WS is allowed.”
7. Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC reads as under:
In Kailash V Nankhu, (2005) 4 SCC 480, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
8. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioners have filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property against the respondent. Petitioner no.1 is the father and petitioner no.2 is the brother of the respondent. In the Trial Court, the suit is stated to be at the stage of evidence on behalf of the respondent.
9. Keeping in view the nature and stage of the suit and the grounds taken in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement, this Court is of the opinion that extension of time to file the written statement was required in the interest of justice and grave injustice would be occasioned if time was not extended. Accordingly, this court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, as the same is a reasoned order passed in accordance with law. The petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merits. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE MAY 18, 2026