DESH RAJ versus BALKISHAN (D) THROUGH PROPOSED LR MS. ROHINI

DESH RAJ versus BALKISHAN (D) THROUGH PROPOSED LR MS. ROHINI

The Delhi High Court erred in applying the amended timeline and the ratio of Oku Tech which is applicable to commercial disputes; although unamended Order VIII Rule 1 is directory and allows discretion to condone delay, the appellant failed to show due diligence after repeated opportunities, yet in view of unique circumstances the Court exercised lenity and directed that the written statement dated 02.11.2017 be taken on record subject to costs, setting aside the orders below.

Parties
Appellant: Desh Raj; Respondent: Balkishan (D) THROUGH PROPOSED LR MS. ROHINI
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Against Order Dated 26.11.2018 of the Delhi High Court Dismissing Revision Petition Challenging Closure of Right to File Written Statement and Striking Off Defence
Outcome
Appeal disposed of; orders of the courts below set aside; lenient exercise of discretion to permit filing of written statement subject to costs
Legal Topics
Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, Timelines for Filing Written Statement, Specific Performance, Condonation of Delay
Civil Procedure Property Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Order VIII Rule 1 CPC Timelines for Filing Written Statement Specific Performance Condonation of Delay

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Desh Raj

Appellant

Balkishan (D) THROUGH PROPOSED LR MS. ROHINI

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Against Order Dated 26.11.2018 of the Delhi High Court Dismissing Revision Petition Challenging Closure of Right to File Written Statement and Striking Off Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dispute is a commercial dispute within Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
  2. 2 Whether the amended timeline in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC (as applied to commercial disputes) was applicable
  3. 3 Whether the Court should exercise discretion to condone delay in filing written statement in a non-commercial suit

Ratio Decidendi

The Delhi High Court erred in applying the amended timeline and the ratio of Oku Tech which is applicable to commercial disputes; although unamended Order VIII Rule 1 is directory and allows discretion to condone delay, the appellant failed to show due diligence after repeated opportunities, yet in view of unique circumstances the Court exercised lenity and directed that the written statement dated 02.11.2017 be taken on record subject to costs, setting aside the orders below.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed of; orders of the courts below set aside; lenient exercise of discretion to permit filing of written statement subject to costs

Orders

  • Written statement purportedly filed on 02.11.2017 be taken on record and a copy be furnished to counsel for the respondent within one week
  • Appellant to pay costs of Rs.25,000 to the respondent