Delhi HC Dismisses Plea Challenging Its Original Side Rules Stipulating Strict Timeline Of 120 Days For Filing Written Statement

The Court said that Section 129 CPC expressly gives the power to the High Court to make Rules, notwithstanding the provisions of the CPC, meaning thereby, the High Court has the authority to frame Rules that may be contrary to other provisions of the CPC.

The Court was hearing Writ Petitions challenging the constitutionality of Rule 4, Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna observed, “in case of any inconsistency between the provisions of the DHC Original Side Rules and the provisions of the CPC, the DHC Original Side Rules shall prevail.”

Senior Advocate P.S. Bindra appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Aditi Mohan appeared for the respondent.

The Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Rule 4, Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 which mandates a strict timeline of 120 days for filing of written statement even in non-commercial matters. It was said that the rule creates unfair discrimination and unequal treatment amongst various litigants in the territory of Delhi, merely based on pecuniary jurisdiction, as non-commercial matters in District Courts are governed by Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC where discretion vests with the Court to condone the delay in filing written statement in non-commercial matters beyond 120 days. It was said that unequal treatment is meted out to litigants, where delay beyond 120 days is not condoned hence, the said rule is ultra fires and unconstitutional.

The Court perused Section 129 CPC and observed, “Section 129 CPC, which is couched in a non-obstante clause, will have an overriding effect over other provisions of the CPC, in case of any conflict. Thus, the DHC Original Side Rules, which have been enacted in terms of the authority conferred by Section 129 CPC, will essentially and necessarily have an overriding effect over other provisions of the CPC. In case of any conflict, the DHC Original Side Rules shall prevail.”

The Court referred the decision in Ram Sarup Lugani and Another Vs. Nirmal Lugani and Others and quoted, “A conspectus of the decisions referred to above leaves no manner of doubt that where ever the phrase “but not thereafter” has been used in a provision for setting a deadline, the intention of the legislature is to treat the same as a preemptory provision Any other meaning sought to be bestowed on the above provision, would make the words “but not thereafter”,inconsequential.”

The Court said that the very distinction, between the procedures of the High Court and Civil Court is found ingrained in Section 129 of the CPC. The said Section recognizes special Rules for the High Court, and thereby, makes a distinction between the High Court and Civil Court.

The Court said that when the CPC itself envisages distinction in the practice and procedure between the High Court and Civil Court, the Rules framed thereunder, cannot be challenged on the anvil of discrimination.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Writ Petitions.

Cause Title: Manhar Sabharwal v. High Court of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:6406)