Recently, the Delhi High Court dealt with a petition where the defendant sought permission to file his Written Statement nearly six years after being served summons. The matter revolved around the petitioner’s plea that his former counsel’s inadvertent mistake led to the non-filing of the statement, a claim the court examined with caution.
The dispute arose from a civil suit in which the petitioner, upon being served with summons, entered appearance before the trial court and was granted time to file his Written Statement. Despite this, he failed to submit it within the statutory period or seek an extension. After a lapse of almost six years, he moved applications under Section 151 CPC and Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for permission and condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement. Both applications were dismissed by the trial court, prompting the present challenge.
Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the delay was not intentional and occurred solely due to the negligence of his previous counsel. It was urged that a litigant should not suffer for the fault of his advocate. The Petitioner also relied on the fact that the matter had been referred to mediation, where a Memorandum of Understanding was executed, suggesting a bona fide intention to resolve the dispute.
Justice Girish Kathpalia noted that there is no blanket principle exempting litigants from the consequences of their counsels’ negligence. The Court emphasized that the petitioner, being an educated individual, was fully aware of his obligation to file the Written Statement within 30 days, as clearly stated in the summons served in both English and Hindi. The Bench further observed that if the petitioner could file replies to other applications under Orders XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 and VII Rule 11 CPC, he could very well have filed his Written Statement in time. The delay of six years, without a credible explanation, reflected a deliberate attempt to protract proceedings and frustrate the opposing party.
Finding no infirmity in the trial court’s reasoning, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the earlier order. However, as a limited concession, the petitioner was allowed to cross-examine the respondent’s witnesses during trial.
Case Title: Taranjeet Singh Kohli v. Kawaljeet Kaur Kohli
Case No.: CM (M) 1961/2025,
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Girish Kathpalia
Counsel for the Petitioner: DHCLSC Sangeeta Chandra
Counsel for the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
