Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by a government research institute challenging two trial court orders: one dated 19.01.2019 striking off its defence for failure to file a Written Statement within the statutory timeline, and another dated 30.05.2025 rejecting its review application and application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. The Court emphasized that while procedure exists to secure substantive justice, it cannot be disregarded on vague explanations of bureaucratic delays. The Court upheld the trial court’s orders, ruling that no exceptional circumstances were shown to justify condonation of the colossal delay.
Facts
The dispute originated from a recovery suit of ₹4,86,400 filed against the petitioner institute. Summons were served on 25.07.2018. However, the petitioner did not file a Written Statement until 04.05.2019, well beyond the 90-day statutory limit under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. On 19.01.2019, the trial court struck off the petitioner’s defence.
The petitioner later filed a review application and an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement, citing delays in obtaining legal opinion, appointing counsel, and finalizing the draft. On 30.05.2025, the trial court dismissed these applications, holding that vague references to bureaucratic processes could not explain nearly two years of inaction. It further noted that without setting aside the order striking off defence, the Written Statement could not be taken on record.
The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227, seeking to overturn both orders.
Issues
- Whether government instrumentalities can seek special treatment in condonation of delay for filing Written Statements beyond the statutory 90-day limit.
- Whether vague explanations of bureaucratic movement of files constitute “exceptional circumstances” justifying condonation.
- Whether striking off defence was legally sustainable in the absence of diligence by the petitioner.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that procedural irregularities should not defeat substantive rights. It maintained that delay in filing the Written Statement was caused by routine bureaucratic processes of government machinery, including movement of files for legal opinion and drafting. The petitioner urged the Court to adopt a liberal approach, contending that its substantive defence should not be shut out merely on technicalities.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent, though unrepresented at the High Court stage, had consistently opposed condonation before the trial court. The trial court had observed that the petitioner was granted ample opportunities but failed to act diligently. The respondent had further argued that government instrumentalities cannot claim a separate standard of limitation from private litigants, and that the petitioner’s explanation was vague, cryptic, and unsubstantiated.
Analysis of the Law
The Court observed that Order VIII Rule 1 CPC prescribes a strict 30-day period, extendable to 90 days, for filing a Written Statement after service of summons. While courts retain discretion to condone delay beyond 90 days in exceptional circumstances, such discretion must be exercised sparingly.
The Court held that vague references to government procedures do not constitute exceptional circumstances. It noted that the petitioner had failed to provide a date-wise account of file movement, thereby failing to demonstrate diligence. Allowing such laxity would render the codification of procedure meaningless and defeat the purpose of time-bound adjudication.
Precedent Analysis
- Union of India v. Wishwa Mittar Bajaj & Sons, 141 (2007) DLT 179 – Held that negligence or indifference of government officers cannot justify condonation of delay; the law of limitation applies equally to State and individuals.
- State of M.P. v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654 – The Supreme Court criticized habitual government delays, warning that condonation cannot be sought mechanically and imposed costs on negligent officers.
- Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563 – Held that government bodies cannot claim a separate limitation regime and must act with diligence; condonation is an exception, not a rule.
The Court applied these precedents to reinforce that bureaucratic inefficiency is no ground for ignoring statutory timelines.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that procedure, though meant to aid justice, cannot be disregarded. The entire purpose of codification would be defeated if parties—especially government authorities—were permitted to ignore statutory timelines with vague excuses.
It found no merit in the petitioner’s claim of exceptional circumstances. The delay was colossal and unexplained. There was no evidence of fraud, connivance, or external impediment preventing timely filing. Instead, the explanation reflected routine bureaucratic lethargy.
Thus, the Court upheld the trial court’s finding that striking off the defence was justified, and dismissed the petition.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the trial court’s orders striking off the petitioner’s defence and rejecting condonation of delay. It reiterated that vague excuses of government delay cannot be accepted, and government agencies are bound by the same procedural standards as private parties. Pending applications were also disposed of.
Implications
This ruling sends a strong message to government departments and public sector undertakings that they cannot rely on bureaucratic lethargy as a defence for procedural lapses. It affirms equality before law in procedural compliance and underscores the judiciary’s commitment to efficiency in civil litigation. It also strengthens the principle that condonation of delay is an exception, not the norm.
FAQs
Q1. Can government departments claim special treatment in filing delays?
No. The Court held that procedural law applies equally to State and individuals; bureaucratic inefficiency is no ground for condonation.
Q2. What constitutes “exceptional circumstances” for condonation beyond 90 days?
Exceptional circumstances must be specific, demonstrable, and unavoidable—such as fraud, force majeure, or external impediments—not vague administrative delays.
Q3. Why was the defence struck off in this case?
Because the Written Statement was filed far beyond the statutory 90-day period without exceptional justification, leaving the Court with no option but to strike off defence.