Combating Delay in Civil Suits

 Combating Delay in Civil Suits

Delay in civil suits is a matter of concern. One of the most prominent reasons is delayed WS. Often where Delhi - headquartered Companies are defendants, delayed WS are filed and then condonation on baseless grounds are raised.

In order to ensure civil suits filed against Delhi - headquartered Companies are not delayed, one can invoke Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd v. Ashish Khanna [2024] GCtR 3380 (Delhi). It was rightly held that "Court can only extend the period of 30 days for filing of written statement by further 90 days, but not beyond the period of 120 days in total" .

In the case baseless argument made by defendant was that this is not a Commercial Suit and therefore, period of 120 days in filing WS is not mandatory and only directory.

The time limit was rightly noted that the period of 30 days from the date of service of defendant No.1 and 90 days thereafter, as a discretionary period to file the written statement was already over. Defendant has stated that she has filed the written statement alongwith condonation application on 24.08.2022 which in itself has been filed after lapse of 120 days. The said written statement has not come on record till date and was under scrutiny. It was rightly held that a person cannot be granted indefinite time to clear the objections.

Law was made clear and apparent. Statutory period for filing the WS is only 30 days and after that the defendant has to show that he/she was prevented by sufficient cause for exceptional and unavoidable reasons and only on being convinced, the time can be extended to further 90 days.  Extension of time beyond 90 days is not automatic and satisfaction of the Court has to be recorded, as to the existence of sufficient justification, for departing from the time limit fixed by the Court.  

One would often find some defendants making following excuses : "That after the new Directors took charge, a new Counsel was engaged to appear before the Judge in the concerned suit on the next date of hearing. That for the first time the new management was represented before the Court in the concerned suit only on a later date". Such arguments were rightly not entertained. 

One can safely argue on basis of para 17 of Delhi Gymkhana Club (Supra) that once summons by previous counsel was accepted on previous date and then delay in filing WS has occurred, then merely because new counsel has engaged would not lead to acceptance of WS. 

The argument that period of date of issuance of summons and the date of first appearance on behalf of the new management in the concerned suit deserves to be excluded for the purpose of calculating the 120 days limitation period was rightly rejected in Delhi Gymkhana Club v. Ashish Khanna [2024] GCtR 3380 (Delhi). 

The findings at para 18 are extremely well-reasoned where it was noted that "merely because the management of the club had been changed, the same would not constitute a justifiable ground for extending the time for filing the written statement". "It is also not the case of the Defendant that the Counsel who had appeared on 25th March, 2022 on its behalf was not duly authorised by the Defendant."

Overall, Delhi Gymkhana Club v. Ashish Khanna [2024] GCtR 3380 (Delhi) is a superbly reasoned finding. The principles expressed there seem to be in accordance with law laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd [2020] GCtR 956 (SC). 

One should not hesitate in quoting Delhi Gymkhana Club v. Ashish Khanna [2024] GCtR 3380 (Delhi) in cases filed against Delhi - headquartered Companies to ensure delayed WS filed by such Companies gets rejected.