Mandatory 120-Day Limit for Filing Written Statements Under DHC Rules Is Final and Non-Extendable

The plaintiffs filed a civil suit against the defendants.

The Registry served summons to defendant nos. 1 to 3 via email on March 20, 2025, and through ordinary mode on March 26, 2025.

The defendants filed their written statement on July 24, 2025, which was initially returned under objection.

On November 20, 2025, the Joint Registrar (Judicial) dismissed the defendants’ application for condonation of delay (I.A. 18293/2025), noting that the written statement was filed after the expiry of the maximum 120-day period.

The defendants subsequently filed the present chamber appeal (O.A. 86/2026) under Rule 5, Chapter II of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, challenging the Joint Registrar’s refusal to condone the delay.

1. Whether the Court possesses the power to condone a delay in filing a written statement beyond the outer limit of 120 days as prescribed by the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

2. Whether the phrase "but not thereafter" in Rule 4, Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, acts as a mandatory prohibition against extending the time for filing a written statement.

Chapter VII, Rules 2 and 4 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, which stipulate that a written statement must be filed within 30 days of service, extendable by a maximum of 90 days upon showing sufficient cause, "but not thereafter".

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s interpretation in P. Radha Bai v. P. Ashok Kumar (2019) 13 SCC 445, which held that the phrase "but not thereafter" signifies a mandatory outer boundary that excludes Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Division Bench rulings in Manhar Sabharwal v. High Court of Delhi (2024) and Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited v. Col. Ashish Khanna (2024), establishing that the High Court’s Original Side Rules prevail over the CPC and that the 120-day limit is mandatory for all suits, including non-commercial ones.

The Court observed that Rule 4 of Chapter VII explicitly limits the Court’s authority to condone delays.

It reasoned that the legislative intent behind the term "but not thereafter" is to fix a non-extendable deadline to prevent adjudication delays.

By applying the timeline to the facts, the Court noted the defendants were served in late March 2025, yet filed their written statement on July 24, 2025, which exceeded the total permissible 120-day window (30 days initial plus 90 days discretionary extension).

The Court emphasized that once the 120-day period expires, the right to file a written statement is extinguished, and the Court cannot invoke inherent powers to circumvent this express limitation.

It found no error in the Joint Registrar’s order dated November 20, 2025.

The suit was directed to be listed before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on July 31, 2026, for further proceedings.