- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sukhdev Singh Gambhir (Dr.) Petitioner v. Amrit Pal Singh And Others S
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns the question of whether the written statement filed by the defendants on 4th April, 2003, should be permitted to be taken on record by condoning the delay in filing. The suit is for partition among family members. The defendants filed their written statement nearly four and a half years late, after an extension of eight weeks granted on 25th May, 1999. The delay was attributed to bona fide attempts at settlement and prolonged negotiations. The suit was originally instituted in the District Court but was returned for presentation before the appropriate court, leading to the present suit. The defendants had already filed a written statement in the earlier suit before the District Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the court should condone the delay in filing the written statement filed by the defendants after nearly four and a half years beyond the prescribed period.
- Whether the provisions of Order V Rule 1 and Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) apply to this case.
- The extent to which the court's discretion should be exercised in allowing delayed filings in partition suits involving family members, especially where settlement negotiations have taken place.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The written statement was not filed within the prescribed period and was filed well beyond the 90-day extension permissible under Order V Rule 1 and Section 148 CPC.
- The delay of nearly four and a half years is excessive and should not be condoned.
- The defendant's prior filing of a written statement in the District Court suit does not justify the delay in the present suit.
- The court's discretion should not be exercised to benefit a defendant who delays and prolongs litigation.
- The plaintiff has a right accrued under Order V Rule 1 CPC to have the written statement rejected due to the gross delay.
Defendant's Arguments
- The delay was due to bona fide attempts at settlement among family members, which justified the late filing.
- The written statement had been ready since November 2002 but was withheld to avoid thwarting settlement negotiations.
- The provisions of Order V Rule 1 CPC are not applicable in this case.
- The defendant had already filed a written statement in the earlier District Court suit, indicating the defence was crystallized.
- Any subsequent events sought to be brought on record do not amount to an attempt to improve the case unfairly.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Topline Shoes Ltd. v. Corporation Bank, AIR 2002 SC 2487 | Interpretation of time limits for filing replies under Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, emphasizing the directory nature of prescribed time frames and the court's discretion to condone delays. | The court relied on this precedent to hold that prescribed time limits are not mandatory in all circumstances and that the court has inherent power to condone delay, especially when justice and settlement efforts are involved. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered the nature of the suit—partition among family members—and the importance of amicable settlement efforts mandated under Section 89 CPC. It noted that the defendant had already filed a written statement in the earlier District Court suit, indicating that the defence was prepared and that the delay was not due to negligence but to sincere settlement efforts.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Topline Shoes Ltd., the court recognized that time limits for filing pleadings are generally directory rather than mandatory and that the court has discretion to condone delays in appropriate cases. The court balanced the plaintiff’s right to timely proceedings against the defendant’s bona fide attempts at settlement and found that justice favored condonation of the delay.
The court also acknowledged the plaintiff’s concern about potential attempts to improve the case but observed that any inconsistent pleas or admissions could be challenged by the plaintiff at the appropriate stage. The court thus exercised its inherent powers to extend time for filing the written statement, subject to conditions.
Holding and Implications
The court held that the delay in filing the written statement is condoned and the written statement is permitted to be taken on record.
The court imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/- for the delay, with Rs. 7,500/- payable to the plaintiff and Rs. 2,500/- to be deposited with the Advocates Welfare Fund. It directed the parties to file replication and documents within four weeks and scheduled the matter for admission/denial of documents before the Joint Registrar.
The decision directly affects the parties by allowing the defendant’s delayed written statement to be considered, while compensating the plaintiff for the delay. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles regarding condonation of delay and the court’s discretionary powers.
Manmohan Sarin, J.:— By this order, I would be deciding the question whether the written statement filed by the defendants on 4th April, 2003, be permitted-to be taken on record by condoning the delay in filing or not?
2. Learned counsel for plaintiff submits that the written statement has not been filed within the prescribed period. Not only that, it has been filed much beyond 90 days period, upto which the Court could extend the time exercising powers under Order V Rule 1 and Section 148 of the CPC. Written statement is stated to have been filed by the defendants on 4th April, 2003, while defendants are stated to have given eight weeks' time for filing the written statement on 25th May, 1999. Undoubtedly, written statement has been filed after a period of nearly four and half years. The explanation offered by Mr. Vipin Sanghi, learned counsel for the defendant is that this being a suit for partition amongst family members, bona fide attempts were being made to reach at a settlement. It is on account of prolonged negotiations and talks, that resulted in the delay in filing of the written statement.
3. Mr. Sanghi submits that the written statement had been ready as far back as November, 2002, but was not filed pending expectation of a settlement. Filing of the written statement would have thwarted the negotiations. He also submits that provisions of Order V Rule I CPC are not applicable to this case.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that originally the suit for partition had been instituted in the District Court. The plaint was returned to be presented before the appropriate Court on objections as to jurisdiction etc. Hence the present suit was filed. It is stated that the defendant had filed the written statement in the suit before the District court. This factor to my mind does not negate the case for condonation of delay, rather it strengthens it. In as much as it shows that the defendant had already crystalized its defence and there should have been no difficulty in filing the written statement in the present case, but for efforts being made to amicably settle the matter. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the discretion of the Court should not be exercised in such a manner that a defendant who delays and prolongs the litigation gets the benefit out of it. He submitted that in case like the present one, entailing a gross delay in filing the written statement, the Court should reject the prayer for condonation of delay and not permit the written statement to be taken on record, which is a right accrued in favour of the plaintiff in terms of Order V Rule 1 CPC.
5. Having heard, counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the respective pleas urged before me, I am of the view that this is a case where the delay in filing of the written statement deserves to be condoned. Firstly it is a suit for partition concerning a family members where every endeavour should be made for amicable settlement. Even otherwise, the mandate under Section 89 effort ought to be made to settle the matter. Secondly, the defendant had already filed the written statement in the suit in District Court. Hence it could not be the situation that the defendant was delaying the case, but on account of the attempts at settlement written statement was not filed. Next the learned counsel expressed reservation that the defendant would attempt to improve its case. In case any pleas are sought to be taken, which are inconsistent with the earlier written statement or any admission is sought to be withdrawn, it is always to the plaintiff to assail the same. Mr. Sanghi states that certain subsequent events are only sought to be brought on record. I need not go into this question at this stage.
6. Reference may be made to the observations, of the Supreme Court in Topline Shoes Ltd. v. Corporation Bank., AIR 2002 SC 2487 wherein while dealing with the time limit prescribed for filing reply under Section 13(2)(a) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Court held as under:
“The intention to provide a time frame to file reply, is really meant to expedite the hearing of such matters and to avoid unnecessary adjournments to linger on the proceedings on the pretext of filing reply. The provision however, as framed, does not indicate that it is mandatory in nature, in case the extended time exceeds 15 days, no penal consequences are prescribed therefor. The period of extension of time “not exceeding 15 days” does not prescribe any kind of period of limitation. The provision appears to be directory in nature, which the consumer forums are ordinarily supposed to apply, in the proceedings before them. It cannot be said that in no event, whatsoever, the reply of the respondent could be taken on record beyond the period of 45 days. The provision is more by way of procedure to achieve the object of speedy disposal of such disputes. It is an expression of “desirability” in strong terms. But it falls short of creating of any kind of substantive right in favour of the complainant by reason of which the respondent may be debarred from placing his version in defence in any circumstances whatsoever. It is for the forum or the Commission to consider all facts and circumstances along with the provisions of the Act providing time frame to file reply, as a guideline, and then to exercise its discretion as best it may serve the ends of justice and achieve the object of speedy disposal of such cases keeping in mind principles of natural justice as well. The Forum may refuse to extent time beyond 15 days, in view of S. 13(1)(a) of the Act but exceeding the period of 15 days of extension, would not cause any fatal illegality in the other.”
7. In view of the discussion in para 4 hereinbefore and observation of the Supreme Court in Topline Shoes Ltd. (supra) the present case is one where the Court ought to exercise its inherent power to extend the time for filing of the written statement. The plaintiff can be compensated in terms of costs by delay in filing the written statement. The written statement is allowed to be taken on record and the delay in filing is condoned, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/-. Rs. 7500/- to be paid to the plaintiff and Rs. 2500/- be deposited with the Advocates Welfare Fund. Let replication thereto be filed within four weeks. Documents by the parties to be filed within four weeks. List this matter before the Joint Registrar for admission/denial of the documents on 27th September, 2003.
Alert