When delay in filing written statement should not be candoned?

In view of decision of the Salil Dutt's case as also after
considering the explanation offered by defendant No.12, I do not
find this is a fit case for exercising powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution   of   India.     As   noted   earlier,   the   suit   was   posted   on
27/02/2015 for pronouncement of judgment.  At that stage, Notice
of Motion was taken out even without enclosing written statement.
The   Motion   was   taken   out   only   by   defendant   No.12   and   by
defendants No. 1 to 11, 13 to 18.  In case of Brijesh Kumar (supra),
the Apex Court has observed that while exercising discretion by the
Court, condition precedent, namely sufficient cause for delay must be
satisfactorily and convincingly explained.  Inordinate delay caused by
inaction or negligence lacking bon fides would dis­entitle claimant
from protection under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.  In this
present case, in my opinion,  the said decision applies by all fours.
While dismissing the Motion, the learned trial Judge has directed
defendant No.12 to conclude final argument on his side on or before

next date which I am informed is 30/06/2015. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5343 OF 2015
Mehendara P.Shah … Petitioner
Vs.
Gurupreet Kamaljeet and others … Respondents
        CORAM  : R. G. KETKAR, J.
DATE       :  25th JUNE, 2015
Citation;2016(3) ALLMR142

Print Page

Whether court can condone delay in filing written statement if parties are negotiating settlement during pendency of matter?

 Even otherwise, it is a well settled principle of law that if parties are negotiating settlement during the pendency of a matter, then the Court will condone the delay in filing of written statement due to such settlement talks. This Court, in its decision in Dr. Sukhdev Singh Gambhir v. Amrit Pal Singh & Ors., ILR (2003) I Delhi 577, inter alia held that:

"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 family members where every endeavor 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 " (emphasis added)

 The present suit squarely falls under the said exemption and this Court has the discretion to provide for extended timelines for completion of pleadings as per the prior statute.

Delhi High Court

Telefonaktiebolaget L.M ... vs Lava International Limited on 9 December, 2015

Author: Manmohan Singh

I.A. No. 25029/2015 in CS (OS) No.764/2015

Print Page