Time period for filing written statement, replication under HC Rules mandatory; applies to both commercial & ordinary suits: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the time period for filing written statement and replication under Rule 4 and Rules 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, respectively, is mandatory in nature and applied to commercial as well as ordinary suits. (Gautam Gambhir vs Jay Ambay Traders).The Judgment was passed by a single judge Bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao in appeals preferred in a couple of suits on the original side. .While one appeal concerned the condonation of delay in filing the written statement by defendants beyond 120 days, the other pertained to the closure of the right to file a replication by the plaintiff after the lapse of the 45-day period..Condonation of delay in filing the written statement was inter alia sought on the following grounds by the defendants concerned:- Under Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, it was not mandatory to file written statement within 120 days. - Any delay in filing the written statement could be condoned by the Court if "sufficient cause" is shown by the defendant. .The request for condonation was opposed by the plaintiff concerned on the following grounds:- It was impermissible to allow filing of written submissions beyond 120 days in view of Rule 4 of Chapter-VII of the HC Rules. - For the purpose of filing of the written statement, Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the HC Rules was relevant and not Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. - Original side Rules were applicable to all kinds of proceedings on the original side of this Court irrespective of whether it is an ordinary suit or a commercial suit..Court has no power to extend time limit of 45 days for filing replication in a suit, Delhi HC.Liberty to file the replication in the other suit was inter alia sought on the following grounds by the plaintiff concerned:- Court’s ruling in Odean Builder's case on the mandatory filing of replication within 45 days only pertained to commercial suits and not non-commercial cases such as the one under consideration.- Rule 5 of Chapter VII of HC Rules did not indicate that filing of replication had to be a time-bound process. - Section 5 of the Limitation Act governed the application for condonation of delay in filing the replication. .Closure of the plaintiff's right to file a replication was defended on the following grounds:- The HC Rules, as framed under the Delhi High Court Act, applied to all kinds of suits, irrespective of whether they fell within the definition of a commercial dispute in terms of Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act.- Mandatory requirement under the CPC or the HC Rules, such as Rule 5, could not be dispensed with. - As per Section 29 of the Limitation Act, it only applied to condoning the delay in filing of suits, appeals and applications and not a replication. .Findings:.The Court at the outset clarified that the HC Rules, 2018 had an overriding effect on the provisions of the CPC....the Supreme Court has traced the history of the charter establishing High Courts in the country and after exhaustive consideration of various aspects has, inter-alia, held that the rules framed by High Courts would prevail over the provisions of the CPC, even if the said rules are inconsistent with the Code.Delhi High Court.Thus, establishing that only the HC Rules applied to the cases at hand, the Court first concluded that the filing of written submission within 120 days was a mandatory condition under Rule 4 as it even contained the consequence of not filing the same within the prescribed time. ."..the Rule fixes an outer limit for filing the written statement. The words ‘but not thereafter’ have relevance and they do indicate that the period cannot be extended further..Rule 4 of Chapter VII contains the phrase ‘period not exceeding’ having a mandatory flannel.", it said. .Proceeding to the issue of time-bound filing of replication, the Court remarked, ...when I have already on an interpretation of Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the Rules of 2018 concluded that filing of written statement within a period of 120 days is mandatory, it must follow that the period of 45 days in Rule 5 of Chapter-VII is also mandatory in nature, otherwise, it follows the time limit for filing written statement is mandatory but not for replication; in fact without any time limit.Delhi High Court.The Court stated that as has been declared in Odeon Builders case, the maximum period of 45 days shall hold good for ordinary suits/non-commercial suits as well.."..it is clear that the Rule 5 of Chapter VII of Rules of 2018 contains the phrases ‘period not exceeding’ and ‘but not thereafter’, both of which have been held to be mandatory..", it said. .The Court further clarified that Rule 14 and 16 of the HC Rules on the inherent power of the Court would not be of help in the present case as such power could not be exercised in a manner which will be contrary to or different from the procedure expressly provided. .Use of the phrase "but not thereafter" in Rule 5 was an express exclusion of the Limitation Act, the Court added..The appeals were accordingly dismissed. .In the appeal concerning condonation of delay for filing written statement, the plaintiff was represented by Advocates Paritosh Budhiraja, Fanish Jain, Surabhi Maheshwari, Akash Kumar Singh, Anshula Gupta. .Defendants were represented by Advocates Balwant Singh, Nishant Awana, Jalaj Pandey..In the appeal concerning filing of replication, the plaintiff was represented by Advocates Tanmaya Mehta, Aditya Garg, Raghav Wadhwa. The defendant was represented by Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog and Advocates Gurpreet Singh, Achal Gupta, Neha Aggarwal. .Read the Judgement: