Gulshan Kaur v. Sanjiv Kumar Dham and Anr

Delhi High Court · 09 Jul 2026 · 2026:DHC:5571

Sachin Datta

CS(OS) 614/2024

2026:DHC:5571

civil appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the chamber appeal and refused to condone delay in filing the written statement, upholding the closure of Defendant No.1's right due to inordinate and unexplained delay.

Full Text

O.A.171/2026 & IA No.17483/2026 in CS(OS) 614/2024
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 GULSHAN KAUR .....Plaintiff

CS(OS) 614/2024
Through: Mr. Vijay Kasana and Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, Advocates.

VERSUS

SANJIV KUMAR DHAM AND ANR .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Ashish Bassi and Ms. Shreya Gulati, Advs. for D-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)
IA No.17483/2026 (seeking condonation of delay of 242 days in filing
Chamber Appeal)

O.A.171/2026 (filed on behalf of D-1 against order dated 25.09.2025)

JUDGMENT

1. The present chamber appeal is preferred by the appellant / defendant no.1 under Rule 5, Chapter II of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 read with Section 151 CPC against the order dated 25.09.2025, passed by the Ld. Joint Registrar (Judicial) in CS(OS) 614/2024, whereby the right of the defendant no.1 to file written statement was closed.

2. The order dated 25.09.2025 records that summons were issued to the defendant no.1 on 16.04.2025. This aspect is not disputed by the defendant no.1. It is also matter of record that no written statement was filed within the prescribed period.

3. Thereafter, I.A. No.12628/2026 came to be filed by the said defendant no.1 on 29.04.2026. The same reads as under:

“1. That the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking specific

performance of an alleged oral agreement to sell dated 13.04.2021 in

respect of property bearing Plot No. I-49, Jangpura Extension, New

Delhi.

2. That the Defendant No.1 has been arrayed as a party in the present

proceedings and intends to contest the suit on merits.

3. That due to circumstances beyond the control of the Defendant

No.1, the Written Statement could not be filed within the stipulated

period, and consequently the opportunity to file the written statement was

closed by this Hon’ble Court.

4. That the delay in filing the Written Statement is neither intentional

nor deliberate but occurred due to bona fide reasons.

4,082 characters total

5. Since the pleadings are yet to be completed, and the matter is at an

early state, an opportunity may be granted to Defendant No.1 to file his

written statement.

6. That the Defendant No.1 has a substantial and meritorious defence

to the present suit, and unless the Written Statement is taken on record,

grave prejudice shall be caused to the Defendant No.1.

7. That allowing the Written Statement to be taken on record will not

cause any prejudice to the plaintiff, whereas refusal would lead to

serious injustice to the Defendant No.1. If the opportunity is denied, it

shall cause irreparable harm to the Defendant No.1.

8. That this Hon’ble Court has the power under Section 151 CPC to

allow the Written Statement to be taken on record in the interest of

justice.

Prayer

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully

prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a) Permit the Defendant No.1 to file the Written Statement and take the same on record despite the delay; b) Pass any other order(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

4. A perusal of the aforesaid IA shows that it does not contain any cogent justification for not filing written statement. The said I.A. was itself filed on 29.04.2026, viz. more than a year after summons stood served on the defendant no.1.

5. Vide the impugned order dated 25.09.2025, the Joint Registrar has rightly recorded that since written statement has not been filed within the prescribed time, right of the defendant no.1 to file the same stands closed.

6. It is noticed that even the present Chamber Appeal against the said order dated 25.09.2025 is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay of 242 days in filing the Chamber Appeal. The said application cites medical condition of the defendant no.2 (who is the brother of the defendant no.1) as the reason for not filing the written statement in the prescribed time period.

7. It is noticed that the aspect regarding the medical condition of defendant no.2 was not even cited by the defendant no.1 in its IA No.12628/2026.

8. In the aforesaid context and given the chronology, this Court finds no justification for condoning the delay of 242 days in filing the Chamber Appeal.

9. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay (IA No.17483/2026) is accordingly, dismissed.

10. O.A.171/2026 also accordingly, stands dismissed.

SACHIN DATTA, J JULY 9, 2026

Gulshan Kaur v. Sanjiv Kumar Dham and Anr

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation