Strict Enforcement Of Procedural Deadlines Should Not Impede Administration Of Justice: Delhi HC Condones Delay In Filing Of Written Statements

Noting that the parties were diligent in pursuing their claims, the Bench imposed a cost of Rs. 5K on the petitioners to place the written statement on record payable to the respondents. “While procedural laws are essential for the efficient functioning of the legal system, an overly rigid application can lead to unjust outcomes,” the Court remarked.

A Single Bench of Justice Shalinder Kaur observed, “The purpose of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is to outline the procedure for the defendant to file a written statement in response to the plaintiff's claims, ensuring that both parties have an opportunity to present their case before the court. By providing a structured response to the plaintiff's claims, the written statement helps in streamlining the legal proceedings. It enables the court to understand the scope of the dispute and facilitates a focused and efficient adjudication of the case.”

Advocate Onkar Nath represented the petitioners, while Advocate Akshit Sharma appeared for the respondent.

The application of the petitioners under under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the Act), read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to condonation of delay of 125 days in filing their written statements was earlier dismissed by the trial court finding the reasons for the delay unsatisfactory. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court.

The parties had jointly purchased a property. The respondent claimed an oral agreement existed allowing the petitioners possession for eight years, after which it would transfer to him for the next eight years. However, the petitioners allegedly failed to vacate the property on time, leading to the filing of the civil suit for partition, injunction, and mesne profits.

The Court explained that Section 5 of the Act granted discretion to the courts to condone delays if the defendant could demonstrate "sufficient cause" for not adhering to the prescribed time limits. “This provision ensures that the strict enforcement of procedural deadlines does not impede the administration of justice. It recognizes that there may be genuine reasons for delays, and the primary aim is to ensure fair adjudication rather than strict adherence to procedural technicalities,” the Court explained.

“This provision ensures that the strict enforcement of procedural deadlines does not impede the administration of justice. It recognizes that there may be genuine reasons for delays, and the primary aim is to ensure fair adjudication rather than strict adherence to procedural technicalities. While procedural laws are essential for the efficient functioning of the legal system, an overly rigid application can lead to unjust outcomes,” the Bench observed.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.

Cause Title: Savitri Goel & Anr. v. Parvesh Arora (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4252)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocate Onkar Nath

Respondent: Advocate Akshit Sharma

Click here to read/download the Judgment