Delhi High Court
Delhi Development Authority vs Anup Kumar & Anr on 4 February, 2020
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 4th February, 2020
+ CM(M) 130/2020
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Faisal Naseeh, Ms. Parul
Panihi, Mr. Anant Nigam and Mr.
Rajat Sejwal, Advocates.
(M:9971936265)
versus
ANUP KUMAR & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rishi Vohra, Proxy counsel.
(M:9999498955)
Mr. Ajay Aroraa and Mr. Kapil Dutta,
Advocate for SDMC.
(M:9999322675)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)
CM APPL. 4459/2020(Exem)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.
CM APPL. 4458/2020(Delay)
2. Delay in filing is condoned. Application is disposed of.
CM(M) 130/2020
3. The impugned order dated 30th August, 2019, dismissed the
application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC filed by the DDA seeking
condonation in filing of the written statement. Both counsels agree that the
written statement has been filed by the DDA within 180 days. The Trial
Court, however, came to the conclusion that no proper reasons were given
for condoning the delay.
4. The Court has perused the reasons set out in the application under
Order VIII Rule 1 CPC filed by the DDA seeking condonation of delay.
Considering the fact that this is a suit for declaration and injunction in
respect of a MIG flat where there is an allegation that the Respondent No.1
herein/Plaintiff has encroached upon some public land and a show cause
notice was issued in respect thereof, which is challenged in the suit, this
Court is inclined to condone the delay since the written statement has been
tendered within the overall time period of 180 days. Recently in Desh Raj v.
Balkishan (D) through proposed LR Ms. Rohini [Civil Appeal No.
433/2020, decided on 20th January, 2020] the Supreme Court has struck a
difference between provisions of CPC as applicable to commercial and non-
commercial disputes. It has been reiterated as under:
"12. Hence, it is clear that post coming into force of
the aforesaid Act, there are two regimes of civil
procedure. Whereas commercial disputes [as defined
under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015] are governed by the CPC as amended by Section
16 of the said Act; all other non-commercial disputes
fall within the ambit of the unamended (or original)
provisions of CPC.
13. The judgment of Oku Tech (supra) relied upon the
learned Single Judge is no doubt good law, as recently
upheld by this Court in SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd.
v. KS Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 2019
AIR(SC) 2691 but its ratio concerning the mandatory
nature of the timeline prescribed for filing of written
statement and the lack of discretion with Courts to
condone any delay is applicable only to commercial
disputes, as the judgment was undoubtedly rendered in
the context of a commercial dispute qua the amended
Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.
14. As regard the timeline for filing of written
statement in a noncommercial dispute, the
observations of this Court in a catena of decisions,
most recently in Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A.
Chunawala and Co., 2018 SCC 639 holds the field.
Unamended Order VIII Rule I, CPC continues to be
directory and does not do away with the inherent
discretion of Courts to condone certain delays."
5. The delay in filing the written statement accordingly stands condoned
subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs to the Plaintiff. The costs shall be
tendered on or before the next date in the Trial Court. Subject to the costs
being tendered, the written statement shall be taken on record and the suit
shall proceed in accordance with law.
6. With these observations the petition and all pending applications are
disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 04, 2020
Dj/A.S.
