Standard CPC and High Court timelines for written statements are inapplicable to Election Petitions.

The Petitioner filed an Election Petition against Respondent No. 1.

While Respondent No. 1 was served with the paper-book on April 25, 2025, the material evidence—specifically certain CDs referenced in the petition—was not provided.

Following an application for the same, the CDs were supplied on August 1, 2025.

Respondent No. 1 e-filed a written statement on August 31, 2025, but defects were only cleared and re-filing completed by October 8, 2025, resulting in a 37-day delay.

On September 25, 2025, the Court forfeited the Respondent’s right to file a reply due to non-appearance of the statement on record.

Respondent No. 1 filed I.A. 29477/2025 to recall the forfeiture order and I.A. 29719/2025 to condone the delay.

Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which mandates that Election Petitions be tried as nearly as possible in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Rule 8 of the Election Rules framed under the Act of 1951 (published 18.05.1967), which governs the issuance of summons but does not prescribe a specific time limit for filing a written statement.

Rule 26 of the Election Rules, which directs that the CPC shall apply in the absence of specific provisions.

Chapter XXVI of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, which incorporates the specialized Election Rules.

The Court reasoned that because the CDs were essential to the allegations and were only supplied on August 1, 2025, the 30-day period for filing the written statement must be reckoned from that date.

The Court observed that Election Petitions are governed by a distinct regime under the Act of 1951 and the 1967 Election Rules.

It determined that the strict, mandatory timelines found in Chapter VII of the DHC Rules (applicable to commercial/civil suits) do not apply to Election Petitions.

Rule 8 of the Election Rules allows the Court to set the filing period during the issuance of summons.

While the Court found Respondent No. 1’s approach "lackadaisical" regarding the initial delay in obtaining CDs, it held that the Court retains the discretion to condone delays for sufficient cause, provided the mandate for expeditious trial under the 1951 Act is respected.

The Court held that neither the timelines in the DHC Rules nor Order VIII Rule 1 CPC strictly govern Election Petitions; rather, the Court sets the period when issuing summons.

The relief was granted subject to a cost of Rs. 1 lakh to be distributed among the Petitioner, the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund, and the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk’s Association.

The Court further directed the completion of rejoinders and admission/denial of documents by May 2026.