Incomplete Summons and Non-Commercial Suit: Delhi High Court Allows Delayed Written Statement with Costs.


09 April 2025 Civil Suits >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Delhi High Court has allowed a defendant (Petitioner No. 1) to file a written statement despite a delay, in a civil suit seeking recovery of Rs. 28,21,000 with interest. The court noted that the defendant claimed to have appeared promptly after receiving the summons but could not file the written statement due to the non-supply of a complete copy of the plaint and documents.

The petitioner argued that despite appearing in court and verbally requesting the plaintiffs' counsel for the complete set, it was not provided. Consequently, the defendant had to apply for and received certified copies on December 24, 2018, and filed the written statement within thirty days thereafter, on January 21, 2019.


 

 

The Trial Court had refused to condone the delay and took the written statement off record, relying on a judgment concerning delays in commercial suits with stricter timelines. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court.

Despite multiple opportunities and intimation, the plaintiffs/respondents did not appear in the High Court proceedings, leading the court to infer a possible concession to the petitioner's prayer.

The High Court emphasized the importance of "meaningful service," which includes providing a complete set of plaint and documents to enable the defendant to file an appropriate response, referencing the Rajesh Kathpal vs. Shubh Steel case.

While acknowledging the defendant's failure to file a formal application for the complete documents before the Trial Court, the High Court also noted the defendant's consistent appearance in court, demonstrating a bona fide intention to defend the suit.

Crucially, the court distinguished the present case from commercial suits, stating that the timeline for filing a written statement in a non-commercial suit is directory, not mandatory, and delays can be condoned upon showing sufficient cause. The court also reiterated that cases should ideally be decided on merits rather than technicalities.

Considering the overall circumstances, particularly the plaintiffs' repeated non-appearance, the High Court allowed the petition. The Trial Court was directed to take the defendant's written statement on record, subject to the defendant paying costs of Rs. 1,00,000 to the plaintiffs before the next hearing date of July 4, 2025. The plaintiffs were also granted liberty to file a replication to the written statement, and the Trial Court was instructed to proceed with the matter according to the law.