Delhi High Court Dismisses Six-Year-Delayed Written Statement Filing by Taranjeet Singh Kohli in Civil Suit Against Kawaljeet Kaur Kohli.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC and Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, dismissed the petition of the Defendant (Taranjeet Singh Kohli) seeking permission to file Written Statement after almost six years of delay. The Court emphasized that mere negligence or default by previous counsel does not absolve the litigant of responsibility. It observed that the Defendant was aware of the filing obligations, had filed other pleadings during the period, and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. The Court held that the inordinate delay indicated an intent to protract litigation and upheld the trial court’s dismissal. Limited relief was granted to allow cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s witnesses.

Background:

1. The Defendant was served summons on 25.09.2019 in a civil suit filed by the Plaintiff (Kawaljeet Kaur Kohli) and entered appearance on 01.10.2019, receiving time to file Written Statement.
2. The Defendant failed to file the Written Statement within the statutory period and did not seek extension at that time. Six years later, the Defendant moved under Section 151 CPC and Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for condonation of delay.
3. Defendant attributed the delay to the previous counsel’s inadvertent mistakes. Copies of applications indicated lack of specific reasoning.
4. During the period, the Defendant filed other pleadings, including a reply under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC and an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, demonstrating awareness of litigation obligations.
5. A Memorandum of Understanding was executed between parties on 02.07.2024, but delay in filing Written Statement remained unexplained.

Court Opinion/Analyses:

1. The Court held that negligence of counsel cannot serve as a blanket excuse; litigants must act diligently.
2. The Defendant’s delay of six years was inordinate and lacked a credible explanation. Filing of other pleadings during this period indicated no genuine impediment.
3. The Court concluded that the delay appeared to be a strategy to frustrate the Plaintiff and prolong litigation.
4. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the trial court order was upheld.
5. Limited relief was granted permitting the Defendant to cross-examine the Plaintiff’s witnesses.

Legal Provision Concerned:

1. Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Inherent powers of the Court to make orders necessary for ends of justice.
2. Order VIII Rule 1, CPC – Time frame for filing Written Statement and condonation of delay.

Case No.: CM(M) 1961/2025 & CM APPL. 63524/2025 & 63525/2025

Court: High Court of Delhi

Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Girish Kathpalia

Petitioner: Taranjeet Singh Kohli

Respondent: Kawaljeet Kaur Kohli

Date of Judgment: 10.10.2025

Key Issues:

1. Delay in filing Written Statement of six years.
2. Responsibility of litigant versus previous counsel’s negligence.
3. Condonation of delay under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and Section 151 CPC.
4. Impact of inordinate delay on the conduct of civil proceedings.

Reliefs Granted:

1. Petition dismissed; trial court order upheld.
2. Limited right granted to Defendant to cross-examine Plaintiff’s witnesses.