Delhi High Court upholds its original side rule mandating filing of written statements within 120 days

The Delhi High Court on Friday rejected petitions challenging Rule 4, Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 which mandates a strict timeline of 120 days for filing of written statements even in non-commercial matters [Manhar Sahbarwal v. High Court of Delhi & Ors]..A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the Delhi High Court Original Side Rules is a special law and will prevail over the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).“The plea raised by the petitioners regarding Rule 4, Chapter VII of the DHC Original Side Rules, being discriminatory in nature, is totally misplaced. The very distinction, between procedures of the High Court and Civil Court, is found ingrained in Section 129 of the CPC. The said Section recognizes special Rules for the High Court, and thereby, itself makes a distinction between High Court and Civil Court. When the CPC itself envisages distinction in the practice and procedure between High Court and Civil Court, the Rules framed thereunder, cannot be challenged on the anvil of discrimination,” the Court said..Two petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the constitutionality of Rule 4, Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.It was argued that this Rule creates unfair discrimination and unequal treatment amongst various litigants in Delhi, merely based on pecuniary jurisdiction.The petitioners contended that non-commercial matters in district courts are governed by Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, which grants discretion to the court to condone the delay in filing written statements in non-commercial matters beyond 120 days.The petitioners stressed that unfair discrimination and unequal treatment are meted out to litigants when a delay beyond 120 days in filing a written statement in non-commercial matters is not condoned on account of Rule 4, in cases filed before the High Court..The Court rejected the argument. It said that the petitioners have not challenged Section 129 CPC, which refers to the Rules framed by a High Court having overriding effect over the provisions of the CPC. Further, it said that no challenge was made to Section 7 of the Delhi High Court Act, which empowers the High Court to make Rules and Orders concerning practice and procedure for exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction.“Thus, when plenary powers of this Court to frame the Original Side Rules, are recognized and accepted, the petitioners have not been able to establish any case that the exercise of such powers by this Court, and the Rules framed thereunder, are unconstitutional in any manner. For the foregoing reasons, the present petitions are held to be devoid of any merits. Accordingly, the same are dismissed, along with the pending applications,” the Bench concluded..Senior Advocate PS Bindra with Advocates Arjun Malik, Vrinda Awasthi, Aarohi Malik and Kharanshu Rana appeared for the petitioner Manhar Sabharwal.Advocates Manish Kaushik, Mishal Johari, Ajit Singh Joher, Anubhav Gupta, Meet Shokeen and Aryan Pandey represented petitioner Chirag Sharma.Advocates Aditi Mohan, Puru Lekhi and Divyam Rathi appeared for the High Court of Delhi.Advocates Rishabh Kapur, Rachita Garg, Agam Rajput, Preeti Chauhan, Sourabh Gupta, Puneet Yadav and Vasu Dev appeared for various respondents..[Read Judgment]