The Delhi High Court reiterates that government departments are not entitled to special treatment regarding delay in filing written statements; condonation is permissible only in exceptional cases with specific, credible explanations. This judgment affirms existing precedent and serves as binding authority within the jurisdiction, with persuasive value elsewhere, particularly affecting litigation involving government entities.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CM(M)/1757/2025 of ICAR NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY Vs AZAD SINGH DAGAR PROP M/S SERVITOR INTELLIGENCE |
| CNR | DLHC010665292025 |
| Date of Registration | 09-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA |
| Court | High Court of Delhi |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Delhi High Court jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether routine administrative delay by government constitutes “exceptional circumstances” for condonation of delay under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court reaffirmed that the procedural timeline for filing written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC applies equally to government and private parties. The law does not recognize routine administrative delays or generalized assertions of bureaucratic process as sufficient cause for condoning delay. The power to accept a written statement after the ninety-day period exists only for truly exceptional circumstances, which must be specifically and credibly explained. In this case, the pleadings disclosed no material facts showing lack of negligence or any exceptional impediment. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court’s orders. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The court relied on the principle that law of limitation and procedural rules apply alike to government and private litigants. Government inefficiency, lack of diligence, or ‘impersonal machinery’ does not warrant automatic condonation; exceptional and specifically explained circumstances are required. Public interest cannot be used to override procedural compliance. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner, a government body, did not file a written statement within the prescribed timeline after being served summons in a recovery suit. Despite multiple opportunities and a review application, there was only a vague explanation of delay due to government process inefficiency. Both applications to condone the delay and to review the striking off of defence were dismissed at the trial court, leading to the present petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate Delhi courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court reinforces that routine administrative or bureaucratic delays by government bodies will not constitute “exceptional circumstances” for condoning delay in filing written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.
- Applications for condonation of delay must contain detailed, date-wise explanations and establish absence of negligence or mala fides.
- Government departments cannot seek a blanket exemption from procedural laws; the same standard applicable to private parties applies to the State.
- This judgment may be cited to challenge perfunctory or generic delay condonation applications by government litigants.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the delay in filing the written statement by the petitioner, a government entity, and found no specific, satisfactory explanation for the prolonged inaction.
- The judge cited Union of India vs Wishwa Mittar Bajaj & Sons, emphasizing that law of limitation and procedural requirements apply equally to all litigants. Administrative delays must be specifically and adequately explained.
- State of Madhya Pradesh vs Bherulal was relied upon to reaffirm judicial impatience with chronic governmental delay and underlined that condonation of delay is the exception, not the rule.
- No exceptional or bona fide circumstances were pleaded or proved; rather, the explanation was vague and failed to demonstrate absence of negligence.
- The order to strike off the defence was thus upheld, and condonation denied.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Argued that procedural irregularities should not defeat substantive rights.
- Attributed the delay in filing the written statement to routine government machinery inefficiency.
- Sought condonation of the delay under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.
Respondent
None present.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from a suit by the respondent for recovery of Rs. 4,86,400/-. The petitioner, served with summons on 25.07.2018, failed to file a written statement within the prescribed period. Despite various opportunities, the default persisted. The trial court struck off the defence, and subsequently dismissed the petitioner’s review and delay condonation applications, leading to the present petition before the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment analyzes Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, which prescribes the timeline for filing written statements by defendants.
- The court reiterated that while courts have discretion to condone delay beyond the initial and extended periods, such discretion must be exercised only in truly exceptional circumstances.
- There cannot be two sets of procedural standards—one for government entities and another for private litigants.
- Precedents cited stress strict compliance and require specific, satisfactory explanation for any condonation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment upholds and applies established law regarding procedural deadlines and condonation of delay for government parties.