Order 8 Rule 1 CPC | Seeking Certified Copies Is No Excuse: Delhi High Court Refuses to Condon Delay in Filing Written Statement

“Delay Beyond 90 Days Cannot Be Justified by Waiting for Certified Copies” — In a recent ruling that reinforces the strict timelines imposed under the Civil Procedure Code post the 2002 amendment, the Delhi High Court refused to condone the delay of a defendant in filing his written statement beyond the statutorily extendable period, holding that “obtaining certified copies” of another case file is not an exceptional circumstance.

Justice Girish Kathpalia upheld the trial court’s order dated 22 July 2025, which had rejected the petitioner’s plea to recall the closure of his right to file a written statement. The High Court held: “The exercise of obtaining certified copies of other litigation was only a ruse… this cannot at all be taken as exceptional circumstance to explain the delay in filing the Written Statement.”

Defendant’s Plea for Recall of Closure Order Dismissed

The case arose from a civil suit for declaration and injunction filed by the respondent (plaintiff) against Kewal Krishan (defendant no. 1). The defendant was served with summons on 19 December 2024, but failed to file the written statement within 30 days — and even within the maximum permissible 90-day window under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

When the right to file the written statement was closed by the trial court on 1 April 2025, the petitioner filed an application on 1 May 2025 seeking recall of that order and condonation of delay, citing the need to obtain certified copies of documents from another litigation.

The trial court dismissed both applications, finding no error or exceptional circumstance. The High Court affirmed that decision in full.

“Certified Copies Were Only a Piece of Evidence, Not Foundational Facts”: High Court Finds Plea Misconceived

The petitioner had argued that the documents from a separate litigation were essential to demonstrate that one of the plaintiffs lacked authority to institute the suit — and therefore, the delay in preparing the written statement was unavoidable.

Rejecting this line of argument, the Court observed: “Those documents were at the most a piece of evidence and not the facts to be pleaded in the Written Statement.”

The Court emphasized that the petitioner could have pleaded that plaintiff no. 1 was not a lawful attorney of plaintiff no. 2 without waiting for certified copies, and more importantly: “Nothing prevented the petitioner from taking inspection of the documents… instead of waiting for certified copies.”

This, according to the Court, showed a lack of due diligence, rendering the justification wholly insufficient.

“Leniency Would Defeat the Purpose of CPC Amendments”: Court Reaffirms Strict Approach Under Order VIII Rule 1

Rejecting the counsel’s plea for a “lenient view,” the Court held that such arguments undermine the legislative intent behind the 2002 amendment to the CPC. Justice Kathpalia stated:

“Such an approach would make the provisions under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC completely otiose and frustrate the basic purpose behind amendment.”

Reinforcing the purpose of Order VIII Rule 1, the Court explained that while courts are not powerless to condone delay even beyond 90 days, this is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, which were not present here.

No Error or Infirmity in Trial Court’s Refusal to Recall Closure Order

Summing up, the Court found no procedural or legal error in the trial court’s rejection of the applications for recall and condonation. It held:

“I am unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order, so the same is upheld.”

Accordingly, the petition and accompanying applications were dismissed.

No Relief for Defendants Who Sleep Over Deadlines

This judgment reflects the Delhi High Court’s unwavering commitment to procedural discipline and the timely progression of civil trials. By denying relief to a party that waited for certified copies instead of filing on time, the Court re-emphasized:

“Pleadings cannot be delayed on account of evidentiary documents which could have been inspected… Diligence and procedural responsibility are not optional.”

The ruling stands as a reminder to litigants and counsel alike that Order VIII Rule 1 is not a flexible guideline — and mere excuses, however plausible they sound, will not substitute for strict compliance.

Date of Decision: 15 September 2025