Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 15th December 2025
IN
RAMACIVIL INDIA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gandhi, Ms. Manjula Gandhi, Mr. Aman Kumar
Yadav & Ms. Barnita Sinha Roy, Advocates.
Through: Dr. Arun Mohan, Senior Advocate
NBCC.
Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’)) & I.A. 14931/2022 (on behalf of the defendant seeking condonation of delay of 90 days in filing the written statement)
JUDGMENT
1. I.A. 13386/2022 has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking a direction that the written statement filed by the defendant be taken off the record and the suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed.
2. I.A. 14931/2022 has been filed on behalf of the defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of ninety (90) days in filing the present written statement.
3. The present suit has been filed seeking recovery of Rs.56,18,86,836/-, and other ancillary reliefs including pendente lite interest, future interest and permanent and mandatory injunction.
4. The defendant, NBCC (India) Ltd., is a central public sector enterprise under the Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs and is working in the construction sector. The disputes in the present suit arise out of a project relating to group housing residential apartments, namely NBCC Green View at Sector-37D, Gurgaon (hereinafter the ‘said project’).
5. The defendant launched the said project in 2012 and 40% of the said project was completed by a third party, who abandoned the said project midway. Thereafter, the plaintiff was awarded the contract to complete the balance work and Agreement dated 1st January, 2015 was entered into between the parties.
6. It is the case of plaintiff that the final claims were not cleared by the defendant. Hence, the present suit has been filed.
7. The undisputed facts obtaining in the present case are as follows: i. Summons in the suit were accepted on behalf of the defendant on 16th March, 2022. ii. The written statement was admittedly filed through e-filing on 14th July, 2022 at 18:58 hours, which was the 120th day from the date of receipt of summons.
8. Ms. Manjula Gandhi, counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that the written statement was filed beyond the time prescribed in the e-Filing Rules of the High Court of Delhi, 2021. Therefore, the same should be treated as having been filed beyond 120 days and hence, the same cannot be permitted to be taken on record.
9. In this regard, the plaintiff has placed reliance on Rule 14.[2] of the e- Filing Rules of the High Court of Delhi, 2021 (hereinafter ‘e-Filing Rules, 2021’). Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in Ambrosia Corner House (P) Ltd. v. Hangro S Foods, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 517.
10. Ms. Gandhi submits that if the written statement were to be filed physically beyond 4:00 PM (the time when the Registry shuts down), the same would not be permitted to be taken on record. Hence, it is submitted that there cannot be two different set of timings in respect of e-filing and physical filing. Therefore, if a written statement is filed beyond the prescribed time through e-filing, the same should not be permitted to be taken on record.
11. She further submits that the written statement was filed without any affidavit of admission/ denial of documents; statement of truth and without any application seeking condonation of delay, all of which were filed subsequently.
12. Dr. Arun Mohan, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant, NBCC (India) Ltd., submits that once the written statement has been filed within the period of 120 days, there cannot be any restriction on the time when the said written statement was filed.
13. Dr. Arun Mohan submits that the language of the statute is clear that the written statement may be filed upto a maximum condonable period of 120 days and the rules framed by the High Court cannot restrict the said 120 days period by putting limitations with regard to the time of filing.
14. He further submits that the summons issued by the Registry also indicates that the written statement shall not be permitted to be taken on record beyond 120 days, without prescribing any time limit. The maximum condonable period of 120 days cannot be reduced to 119 and 3/4 days.
15. He has relied upon the principle of bonam partem, a rule of statutory interpretation, which states that if a statutory provision is capable of two interpretations then the Court must prefer the interpretation that is fair, reasonable and promotes justice rather than the one that produces harsh or unjust consequences.
16. In this regard, the defendant has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Yadav v. Samir Kumar Mahasethi and Ors, (2005) 3 SCC 601, to submit that period of limitation provided in a statute cannot be curtailed by the Rules of the procedure framed by the High Court. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. C.M. Goenka Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd and ors, 2025:BHC-OS:1958[9].
17. The defendant has also placed reliance on Rules 14 and 16 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, which provide that for sufficient cause shown, the Court can excuse the parties from compliance with any requirement of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules and the said Rules shall not limit the inherent powers of the Court to meet the ends of justice.
18. I have heard the counsel for the parties.
19. The question to be decided is whether the time limit of 1600 hours put in Rule 14.[2] of the e-Filing Rules, 2021 can limit the period of limitation as provided in Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter ‘CPC’) as applicable to commercial disputes. For ease of reference, Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is set out below: “[1. Written Statement.—The Defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.] [Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.]” [Emphasis supplied]
20. A perusal of the Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC provides that the written statement has to be filed by the defendant within thirty (30) days from the date of service. The second proviso to the aforesaid rule, applicable in the case of commercial disputes, provides that if the written statement is not filed within a maximum period of 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall lose the right to file written statement. It is a settled position of law that the Court does not have the discretion to extend the period of filing written statement beyond 120 days. [Ref: SCG Contracts (India) (P) Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd., (2019) 12 SCC 210]
21. It is also clear from the reading of the aforesaid proviso that there is no limitation with regard to the time when the written statement is to be filed.
22. It is an undisputed position that the prescribed form of summons to be issued in commercial suits, Annexure E to Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, does not provide for filing of the written statement within a prescribed time limit.
23. The summons merely provide that the written statement has to be filed within 30 days and if the same is not filed within maximum condonable period of 120 days then the defendant shall forfeit his right to file written statement.
24. Next, a reference may be made to Rule 14 of the e-Filing Rules, 2021, which is set out below: “14. Computation of Time
14.1. Wherever limitation/time limits apply, it will be the responsibility of the party concerned to ensure that the filing is carried out well before the cut-off date and time. The date of e-filing will be taken as that date when the Action is electronically received in the Registry within the prescribed time on any working day. For computing the time at which e-filing is made, Indian Standard Time (IST) will apply.
14.2. E-filing through Designated Counters will be permissible up to 1600 hours on any court working day. Online e-filing carried out after 1600 hours on any day, will be treated as the date which follows the actual filing date provided it is a court working day. Actions filed on a day declared as gazetted holiday or on a day when the court is closed, will be regarded as having been filed on the next working day. For the computation of limitation, online e-filing shall be subject to the same legal regime as applicable to the physical filing, save and except as provided hereinabove.
14.3. The facility for online e-filing through the web portal shall be available during all twenty-four hours of each day, subject to breakdown, server downtime, system maintenance or such other exigencies. Where on-line e-filing is not possible for any of the reasons set out above, parties can either approach the Designated Counters for e-filing between 10 am to 4 pm on court working days or take recourse to the physical filing. No exemption from limitation shall be permitted on the ground of failure of the web-based online e-filing facility.
14.4. Provisions for limitation governing online e-filing will be the same as those applicable to the physical filing. The period of limitation for such actions will commence from the date when e-filing is made as per the procedure prescribed in these Rules.”
25. Therefore, the issue to be considered is whether the e-Filing Rules, 2021 framed by the High Court can impose a restriction of time, which is not there in the statute or in the summons.
26. In Raj Kumar Yadav (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with the aspect of limitation in filing an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In terms of the said Act, the limitation prescribed for filing of an election petition is 45th day from the date of election. However, no time is prescribed.
27. From a reading of the judgment, it appears that election petition was handed over to the designated election judge in the High Court of Patna on the 45th day at 4:25 PM, when the prescribed time for the transacting judicial work was 4:15 PM. Hence, the election petition could only be filed on the next day.
28. The Supreme Court, while observing that the statutory period of limitation provided under an Act cannot be taken away by the Rules framed by the High Court, held that the election petition was not time-barred. The relevant observation from the said judgment are set out below: “6. The limitation provided by Section 81 of the Act expires on the 45th day from the date of election. The word “day” is not defined in the Act. It shall have to be assigned its ordinary meaning as understood in law. The word “day” as per English calendar begins at midnight and covers a period of 24 hours thereafter, in the absence of there being anything to the contrary in the context. (See Ramkisan Onkarmal Agrawal v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1994 Bom 87: 1994 Mah LJ 369], AIR at p. 94, Municipal Council of Cuddalore v. S. Subrahmania Aiyar [16 MLJ 101: ILR (1906) 29 Mad 326] and P. Ramanatha Aiyar, The Law Lexicon, pp. 470, 471.) Thus, the election petition could have been presented up to the midnight falling between 27-8-2003 and 28-8-2003.
7. The statutory period of limitation as provided by the Act cannot be taken away by the Rules framed by the High Court governing its procedure. The Rules framed in exercise of the power conferred by Article 225 relate to procedural matters and cannot make nor curtail any substantive law. (See Prabhu Narayan v. A.K. Srivastava [(1975) 3 SCC 788], SCC para 5.) In S.A. Ganny v. I.M. Russell [ILR (1930) 8 Rang 380 (FB)] Carr, J. said: (ILR p. 390) “I am very clearly of opinion, independently of the authorities to that effect, that a High Court has no power to alter by rule any period of limitation prescribed in the Limitation Act. I am, however, also of opinion that when the High Court by rule gives a right of application for which no period of limitation is already prescribed the Court may also fix the period within which that right must be exercised.” And, Cunliffe, J. said (ILR pp. 395-96), “High Court Rules approximate very closely to bye-laws. They can be altered at will. They can be canvassed. They are subordinate and domestic enactments. They must be intra vires of the power from which they derive and any other power in pari materia.” In our opinion, the length of any period of limitation provided by a statute cannot be curtailed by rules of procedure framed by the High Court. When the statute prescribes a particular day or date as the last day for any act being performed, it can be so done up to as late as the midnight immediately preceding the commencement of the next day. *** *** ***
14. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that the election petition was handed over to the Designated Election Judge on the last day of limitation at 4.25 p.m. when the learned Judge was still available within the court premises though he was not sitting in the open court, as the prescribed time of 4.15 p.m. ordinarily meant for transacting judicial work was over. The learned Judge did not himself receive the presentation nor did he make any other order such as the one directing any official of the Registry to receive the same. The election petitioner had done all that was within his power to do for the purpose of presentation but he failed. He made the presentation on the next day when the Judge was available and sitting in the open court. The presentation would be deemed to be within limitation and valid.”
29. In my opinion, the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid extracted observations made by the Supreme Court. The statutory period of limitation cannot be curtailed by the rules framed by a High Court. Where a statute specifies a particular day as the last date for performance of an act, the act may validly be performed until midnight immediately preceding the commencement of the following day.
30. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Yadav (supra) was followed by the Bombay High Court in National Stock Exchange v. C.M. Goenka Stock Brokers (supra). The Bombay High Court was also dealing with a similar issue and Rule 14.[2] of the E-filing Rules of the Bombay High Court provided a time limit of 1600 hours. Rule 14 of the e-Filing Rules of the Bombay High Court is similar to the e-Filing Rules, 2021 of this Court. The relevant observations made in the said judgment are set out below: “24. In my view, the time limit provided of 16:00 hours in Rule 14.[2] of the E-filing Rules appears to be applicable if a person wants to e-file the pleadings through designated counters as defined in Rule 2.[5] read with Appendix-I. In the Court complex, there are designated counters where a person at whose disposal the electronic device is not available can approach these counters for e-filing the pleadings. This would again mean that the litigant approaches the Court office known as “designated counters” in the Court and therefore, it is in this context that Rule 14.[2] has to be construed to mean where e-filing is required to be done through designated counters.
25. It is also important to note Rule 14.[3] which states that the facility for online e-filing through the web portal shall be available during all 24 hours of each day subject to breakdown, server downtime, system maintenance or such other exigencies. It is only when online e-filing is not possible for the reasons set out above that the parties can approach designated counters for e-filing or take recourse to physical filing. Rule 14.[4] provides that the provisions for limitation governing online e-filing will be the same as those applicable to physical filing and the period of limitation will commence from the date when e-filing is made as per the procedure prescribed in these Rules. Rule 3.[4] provides that a person unable to access e-filing portal would be entitled to make use of the facilities provided at the designated Court. Rule 14.[4] if interpreted as suggested by the plaintiff would run contrary to the words used in Order VIII Rule 1 proviso.
26. In my view, Rule 14 which provides that if the e-filing is done after 16:00 hours, then same will be regarded as having filed on the next working day would not apply to the present case since the e-filing is not through designated counters. Furthermore, Rule 14.[3] has to be harmoniously construed with other sub-rules and if so construed, it would mean that e-filing done till the last minute of the expiry of 24 hours would be considered as having filed on that day itself, atleast for the purpose of interpretation of first proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC.
27. It is also important to note Rule 17 of the E-filing Rules which provides that these Rules are not in derogation to the provisions of any substantive or procedural law applicable for disposal of proceedings by the Courts. In my view, on a conjoint reading of Section 16 (3) of the Commercial Courts Act and Rule 17 of the E-filing Rules read with the difference in language between Rule 14 and first proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 and further in the light of the interpretation given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the word “day”, if the proceedings are e-filed on or before the expiry of 23:59 hours, then it should be deemed to have been filed on that day itself and not on the next day for the purpose of calculating last day beyond which substantive right of defence is taken away, atleast for the purpose of interpretation of first proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC.”
31. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Bombay High Court above. E-filing Rules cannot be interpreted in a manner contrary to the words expressed in second proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. The time limit of 1600 hours would only be applicable in cases where the filing is done through the designated e-filing counters as the same would be open only till 1600 hours. Time limit cannot be imposed in cases where e-filing is done from a private space.
32. It would be remiss not to observe that the primary objective of providing e-Filing system is to enhance accessibility and ease of filing. It is a step towards reducing procedural delays by providing access to filing portals 24 hours a day. The judgments discussed above re-emphasise that the procedural requirements should not curtail the rights available to the litigant under substantive law.
33. It is submitted on behalf of Ms. Gandhi that in the days when e-filing was not permitted, physical filing would have to be done by 4 PM by a party and the systems would not accept the filing after that.
34. That may be correct, however, in view of the fact that e-filing has been introduced through the e-Filing Rules, 2021, if the party is now in a position to get benefit under the said Rules, the same cannot be denied on technical grounds.
35. At this stage, a reference may be made to Rule 14 and 16, Chapter I of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, which are set out below:
36. The aforesaid Rules clearly give a discretion to the Court that the Court may dispense with compliance with the requirement of these Rules, if sufficient cause has been shown.
37. Rule 16 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules also reiterates the inherent powers of the Court to make orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice to be met.
38. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ambrosia (supra). Paragraph 9 of the said judgment, which has been relied by the plaintiff is set out below:
39. In Ambrosia (supra), a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed on 4th July, 2022 at 11:48 PM and hence it was contended that the filing should be treated as on 5th July 2022. However, even if the said petition was taken to be filed on 5th July, 2022, it was within the condonable period of 30 days as the Court was closed for Summer Vacations from 4th June, 2022 to 4th July, 2022. Therefore, in the said case, the Court was not dealing with the issue whether filing done beyond the prescribed time limit under the e-Filing Rules, 2021 can be considered as a proper filing for the purposes of limitation. Accordingly, the observations in paragraph 9 of Ambrosia (supra) are in the nature of obiter dicta. In fact, the Court had specifically held that substantive rights of the parties cannot be defeated on account of technicality of the process of Court and its procedures.
40. Insofar as the contention of the plaintiff with regard to the defective filing of the written statement, inasmuch as the written statement was not accompanied by an affidavit of admission/ denial, statement of truth or an application for condonation of delay, Dr. Arun Mohan has correctly placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Radha Phool Fin-Investments (P) Ltd. v. Paramsukh Nirman (P) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5414, where relying upon the judgments of this Court in COSCO (India) Ltd. v. Paramsukh Nirman (P) Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9633 and COSCO International (P) Ltd. v. Jagat Singh Dugar, 2022, SCC OnLine Del 1113, it has been held that where a written statement has been filed within 120 days, the said defects or procedural defects can be cured within the time prescribed in the High Court Rules. The relevant paragraph of Radha Phool Fin-Investments (supra) is set out below:
statement is filed albeit without the affidavit of admission/denial, it is merely a defect which must be thereafter cured in terms of the Chapter IV, Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court Rules and within the time prescribed therefor.”
41. Admittedly, in the present case, the defendant has removed all defects within the permissible time limit.
42. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the written statement has been filed by the defendant within the maximum permissible condonable period of 120 days as provided in second proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC.
43. In my view, sufficient explanation has been given by the defendant in its application seeking condonation of delay.
44. Consequently, the delay is condoned, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the plaintiff within three (3) weeks.
45. Accordingly, the applications stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
46. Written statement is permitted to be taken on record.
47. Replication thereto, if any, be filed within thirty (30) days.
48. List before the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings on 11th February, 2026.
49. List before Court on 18th February, 2026. AMIT BANSAL, J DECEMBER 15, 2025