Delhi High Court - Orders
Mohan Lal Kaul vs M/S Avj Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 18 August, 2025
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~81
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 195/2019
MOHAN LAL KAUL .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Rohan Ahuja and Mr. Aadhar
Nautiyal, Advocates.
versus
M/S AVJ DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Mr. Sumit Jain
& Ms. Venika Nim, Advocates for D-7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 18.08.2025 O.A. 133/2025
1. This chamber appeal is filed on behalf of Defendant No. 7 assailing order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned Joint Registrar whereby application filed by the Appellant for condonation of delay of 52 days in filing written statement has been dismissed.
2. As per record, Defendant No. 7 was served with summons of the suit on 30.04.2019 and filed the written statement along with affidavit of admission/denial of documents on 22.07.2019 i.e. within 90 days but without an application for condonation of delay. Appellant filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC on 13.12.2019 but the same was never listed for consideration. A fresh application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC was filed on 19.04.2022 whereafter Appellant changed his counsel and the present counsel filed vakalatnama on 06.08.2022. It is stated in the CS(OS) 195/2019 Page 1 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 22:51:13 appeal that the new counsel made efforts to trace the application but did not succeed and accordingly, a third application was filed on 17.08.2022 being I.A. No. 12917/2022, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
3. Learned Registrar has dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 52 days in filing the written statement on the ground that numerous opportunities were given to the Appellant to file the application for condonation but he failed to do so as also the fact that noting the non-filing of the application for condonation, Court on 23.02.2022 had observed that written statement cannot be taken on record and allowing the present application will amount to review of the Court order.
4. Counsel for the Appellant submits that written statement was initially filed in the condonable period followed by filing of application for condonation of delay, which could not be traced despite best efforts of the counsel. Appellant also changed his counsel so that written statement could be brought on record by taking pro-active steps for filing fresh condonation of delay application, which was filed but was erroneously dismissed by the impugned order. It is urged that once the initial filing was within the condonable period, hyper-technical approach should not be taken in the matter and the learned Registrar ought to have condoned the delay.
5. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent opposes the appeal on the ground that after filing the written statement, Appellant has been callous in filing the condonation of delay application. If the delay is condoned and written statement is taken on record at this stage, it would defeat the purpose of prescribing strict timelines for filing the written statement and any party would misuse this liberty by initially filing the written statement within time and then taking double the time in getting the same on record. By this delay, CS(OS) 195/2019 Page 2 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 22:51:13 Appellant has succeeded in prolonging the trial, which has prejudiced the Respondent.
6. Heard.
7. Indisputably, Appellant was served with the summons of the suit on 30.04.2019 and the written statement was filed on 22.07.2019 along with affidavit of admission/denial of documents. Appellant pleads that condonation of delay application was filed on 13.12.2019 vide Diary No. 1572800/2019 which also finds mention in the filing history of the case, however, the same reflected as an application filed by the Respondent herein and was not placed on record. In these circumstances, a fresh application was filed on 19.04.2022 vide Diary No. 226432/2022, as in between there was onset of COVID-19. Appellant also changed his counsel so as to diligently pursue the matter and fresh application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC was filed on 17.08.2022 vide Diary No. 1355275/2022, which is dismissed by the impugned order.
8. In my view, once the written statement was filed with the delay of 52 days, which was within the condonable period, hyper-technical approach must not be adopted as there is no doubt that without the written statement, defence of the Appellant will be prejudiced. In this context, I may allude to the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.P. Distributors and Another v. OK Play India Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1512. In the said case, written statement was filed on 34th day of service of summons but the application for condonation of delay was filed beyond a period of 120 days. High Court set aside the order of the learned Commercial Court accepting the written statement. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court observing that High Court had taken a very technical view of the matter and CS(OS) 195/2019 Page 3 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 22:51:13 ought not to have set aside the order of the Trial Court. Considering that the delay in filing the written statement was 52 days and two earlier applications were filed for condonation of delay albeit their fate post-filing is unknown and in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.P. Distributors (supra), I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the written statement. However, counsel for the Respondent is right in his submission that in facts of this case where Appellant has been negligent in taking steps for filing and placing on record the condonation of delay applications, costs should be awarded to the Respondent.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 25.07.2025. Written statement shall be taken on record, subject to Appellant paying cost of Rs.50,000/- to the Respondent within three weeks from today.
JYOTI SINGH, J AUGUST 18, 2025/Shivam CS(OS) 195/2019 Page 4 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 22:51:13