Court’s Decision:
The Delhi High Court dismissed in limine the civil miscellaneous petition seeking another opportunity to file a written statement in a civil suit filed in 2018. The Court held that the petition was “completely erroneous and misplaced,” emphasizing that the time for filing a written statement cannot be extended merely because an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is pending. The Court held that the Trial Court had already been “extra-benevolent” in giving repeated opportunities, which went unutilized.
Facts:
- The original suit for recovery of ₹54 lakhs with interest was filed by the respondent in 2018.
- The petitioner (defendant in the suit) was served with summons on 26.04.2018 and entered appearance on 02.05.2018.
- Instead of filing a written statement, the petitioner filed several applications including:
- Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC,
- Under Section 340 CrPC,
- Under Sections 33, 35, and 38 of the Indian Stamp Act,
- Under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
- The first application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed on 03.09.2019, after which the Trial Court granted 15 more days for filing the written statement.
- However, instead of complying, the petitioner filed a second application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to another opportunity to file a written statement after prolonged delays and filing of procedural applications.
- Whether the pendency of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC could legally extend the limitation period for filing a written statement.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- The petitioner contended that the Trial Court should have granted further time to file a written statement after dismissal of its applications.
- It was argued that the initial plaint was incomplete and that the suit was not filed by an authorized person.
- The petitioner later also claimed the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties and sought reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondent did not oppose the filing of a written statement and even conceded before the Trial Court that the defendant could be given more time.
- Despite this concession, the petitioner failed to avail of the opportunity.
Analysis of the Law:
- The Court emphasized that the legal position regarding limitation for filing a written statement is settled and cannot be bypassed by procedural tactics.
- Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., (2019) 12 SCC 210, the Court reaffirmed that: “The liberty to file an application for rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot be made as a ruse for retrieving the lost opportunity to file the written statement.”
- The Court observed that filing multiple applications cannot justify a prolonged delay in complying with the mandatory procedure.
Precedent Analysis:
- The Court relied on SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. wherein the Supreme Court held that proceedings under Order VII Rule 11 are independent of the filing of a written statement, and cannot be misused to extend the limitation for doing so.
- The Court also referred to R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu, (2016) 14 SCC 275, to underline that the filing of applications does not automatically extend time limits laid down in the CPC.
Court’s Reasoning:
- The High Court observed that the Trial Court had already been lenient and had extended the time not once but twice.
- The petitioner was legally represented and fully aware of the procedural requirements.
- It was noted that despite being served in 2018, the petitioner deliberately avoided filing a written statement under the guise of filing procedural applications.
- The Court stated that the order dated 07.02.2024 (wherein applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Section 8 of the Arbitration Act were dismissed) had attained finality and was never challenged.
- Hence, there was no merit in the plea for further extension of time.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that:
“Mere filing of multiple applications, including an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, could not have given any right or handle to the defendant to seek extension of time.”
As a result, the petition was dismissed in limine with no relief granted to the petitioner.
Implications:
- This judgment reinforces that courts will not entertain repeated procedural tactics to delay filing of written statements beyond the statutory time limit.
- It also underscores that parties cannot misuse Order VII Rule 11 CPC applications as a tool to bypass procedural discipline.
- The decision strengthens the principle of procedural fairness and judicial efficiency by discouraging dilatory litigation strategies.