Non-Compliance with Procedural Norms Unpardonable - Delhi HC Dismisses Petition for Delay in Filing Written Statement

In a firm reaffirmation of procedural discipline, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging the striking off of a defence due to delay in filing the written statement, underscoring the imperative of adhering to the prescribed timelines in legal proceedings.

Delhi High Court has upheld the orders passed by the learned District Judge in a commercial suit, striking off the petitioner’s defence for failing to file the written statement and accompanying documents within the prescribed time frame under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Commercial Courts Act.

Legal Point of the Judgement: The primary legal point addressed in this judgment pertains to the strict adherence to procedural timelines for filing written statements in commercial disputes, as mandated by Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VI Rule 15(A) CPC. The court emphasized the necessity of filing the written statement within 30 days, extendable up to 120 days with sufficient reasons and necessary affidavits, which the petitioner failed to comply with.

Facts and Issues: The petitioner, Nitin Kataria, challenged the orders dated 09.11.2022 and 25.03.2023 by the Trial Court, where his defence was struck off due to the non-filing of the written statement and accompanying documents within the stipulated time. The petitioner claimed that he was misled by an incorrectly uploaded court order on the E-Court website, leading to his non-compliance.

Court Assessment: The Court thoroughly analyzed the petitioner's claim and the pertinent legal provisions. The petitioner's argument that a wrong order was uploaded on the E-Court website, which allegedly misled him, was found unimpressive and non-diligent by the Court. The Court noted the mandatory nature of filing a written statement within the prescribed period under the CPC and the Commercial Courts Act. It was observed that no substantial evidence or appropriate steps were taken by the petitioner to rectify or seek clarification about the alleged misleading order.

Decision: Upholding the Trial Court’s decisions, the High Court dismissed the petition and accompanying applications, stating that the petitioner failed to provide justifiable reasons for the delay and non-compliance with procedural requirements.

Date of Decision: March 11, 2024

Nitin Kataria vs Varun Jain