Delhi High Court
Chandni Fazli vs Razia Sultana And Ors on 7 November, 2024
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela, Manmohan
$~S-22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) 157/2024 & CM APPL.64997/2024
CHANDNI FAZLI .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Ankit Jain, Advocate with
Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Vishal Saxena,
Ms.Aayushi Jain, Mr.Aditya
Chauhan, Mr.Rishabh Jain,
Ms.Divyanshu Rathi and Ms.Radhika
Bansal, Advocates.
versus
RAZIA SULTANA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through:
% Date of Decision: 07th November, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, CJ : (ORAL)
CM APPL.64998/2024 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
FAO(OS) 157/2024 & CM APPL.64997/2024
3. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 20th
September, 2024 passed in I.A. No.8769/2023 in O.A. No.105/2024 in
CS(OS) 730/2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the
chambers appeal and the delay in filing the written statement on the part of
the Respondents 1 to 3 (Defendants No.1 to 3 in the underlying suit) has
been condoned, subject to costs. The underlying suit has been filed by the
Appellant (Plaintiff therein) seeking, inter alia, a preliminary decree of
partition of the properties of her father Late Mr.Intezar Ahmed Siddiqui.
4. The chambers appeal was filed by the Respondents No.1 to 3,
challenging the order of the learned Joint Registrar dated 3rd May, 2024,
whereby I.A. 8769/2023 filed by them for condonation of delay in filing the
written statement was dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the impugned order has
been passed based on conjectures and surmises and without paying heed to
the provisions of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018
("Original Side Rules") by allowing the Respondents/Defendants No.1 to 3
to place on record their written statement despite the expiry of the statutory
period of one hundred twenty (120) days. He further states that the learned
Single Judge has erred by taking on record the written statement by simply
opining that advance copy of the same was served upon the
Appellant/Plaintiff within one hundred twenty (120) days after being served.
According to him the said reasoning is not tenable in view of Rule 4 of the
Original Side Rules. He submits that the interpretation placed by the learned
Single Judge on Rules 3 and 4 of the Original Side Rules is erroneous. He
lastly states that no application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing was
filed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant, this Court is of the
view that the issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is
interpretation of Rules 3 and 4 of the Original Side Rules. The said Rules are
reproduced herein below:-
"3. Affidavit of admission/ denial of documents alongwith written
statement.- Alongwith the written statement, defendant shall also file an
affidavit of admission/ denial of documents filed by the plaintiff, without
which the written statement shall not be taken on record. Alongwith the
written statement, the defendant shall be entitled to file applications for
interrogatories for examination of the plaintiff together with proposed
interrogatories; application for discovery; and application for inspection of
such documents.
4. Extension of time for filing written statement.--If the Court is satisfied
that the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause for exceptional and
unavoidable reasons in filing the written statement within 30 days, it may
extend the time for filing the same by a further period not exceeding 90
days, but not thereafter. For such extension of time, the party in delay shall
be burdened with costs as deemed appropriate. The written statement shall
not be taken on record unless such costs have been paid/ deposited. In case
the defendant fails to file the affidavit of admission/ denial of documents
filed by the plaintiff, the documents filed by the plaintiff shall be deemed
to be admitted. In case, no written statement is filed within the extended
time also, the Registrar may pass orders for closing the right to file the
written statement."
(emphasis supplied)
7. Upon a harmonious reading of Rules 3 and 4 of the Original Side
Rules, this Court is of the view that if a written statement is filed within the
stipulated time frame of thirty (30) days or within the further extended time
period of ninety (90) days without admission/denial affidavit, then the same
shall be taken on record. It is quite possible that in a given case, the
Defendant would like to file his written statement and not his
admission/denial affidavit as he may not like to dispute any of the
documents filed by Plaintiff. Consequently, in the event the
admission/denial affidavit is not filed within the stipulated period, the
documents filed by the Plaintiff shall be deemed to be admitted as stipulated
in Rule 4 of the Original Side Rules.
8. This Court is further of the view that the intent of Rules 3 and 4 of the
Original Side Rules is to ensure that written statements are filed within a
strict time frame and not that matters are decided without allowing the
defence of the Defendants to come on record.
9. This Court is also of the view that since the written statement with
complete particulars (except for the admission/denial affidavit) was filed in
the month of March, there was no need to file a condonation of delay
application, inasmuch as, the Appellant/Plaintiff has been given benefit of
deemed admission of documents by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned order. Moreover, as the learned Single Judge has imposed a cost
of Rupees Fifty Thousand (Rs.50,000/-), this Court finds no ground to
interfere with the impugned order.
10. Accordingly, the present appeal along with application is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, CJ
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
NOVEMBER 7, 2024
TS
