Delhi High Court Sets Precedent on Written Statements

In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court has allowed an appeal to take on record a written statement filed beyond the statutory period of 120 days by excluding the period taken in mediation proceedings. This ruling has significant implications for family law cases, particularly those involving mediation.

The case involved a suit for partition filed among family members. The defendants filed their written statement after the expiration of the 120-day statutory period, seeking condonation of delay. The Joint Registrar dismissed the condonation application, striking off the defense by the defendants. The defendants then appealed under Chapter II Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

The High Court allowed the appeal, noting that it was in the interest of the parties to file the written statement after the conclusion of mediation proceedings. The court excluded the 84 days during which mediation was ongoing, effectively allowing the written statement to be filed beyond the 120-day limit. The court appreciated the submission by the counsel for the appellant that filing the written statement before mediation could prejudice the mediation process.

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), a written statement must be filed within 30 days of service of summons, with a possible extension up to 120 days for reasons recorded in writing by the court. However, the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, mandate a strict 120-day deadline for filing written statements, even in non-commercial matters. This strict timeline was upheld by the Delhi High Court in a previous ruling, where it was determined that the High Court’s rules take precedence over the CPC.

This decision highlights the court’s willingness to consider the unique circumstances of family disputes, particularly when mediation is involved. It underscores the importance of mediation in resolving family conflicts and the need to balance procedural timelines with the interests of justice.

In a similar vein, the Bombay High Court has also dealt with the issue of condonation of delay in filing written statements. In the case of Federal Brands Ltd. v. Cosmos Premises Pvt., the court held that the CPC does not account for the time a miscellaneous application is pending when calculating the delay in filing a written statement. This ruling emphasized strict adherence to procedural deadlines, contrasting with the Delhi High Court’s approach in the family partition case.

The Delhi High Court’s decision to allow the late filing of a written statement in a family partition case sets a precedent for future cases involving mediation. It reflects a nuanced approach to procedural law, recognizing the importance of mediation in family disputes and the need to balance procedural requirements with the interests of justice. This ruling is likely to influence how courts handle similar cases in the future, particularly in the context of family law and mediation.