In a sharp reminder about procedural discipline, the Delhi High Court has refused to excuse a delay in filing a written statement by a defendant, saying that laxity cannot be rewarded when the law sets strict timelines. Justice Girish Kathpalia delivered the ruling on 15 September 2025, dismissing a plea filed by Sh. Kewal Krishan.
Background
The dispute originated from a civil suit filed by Gulshan Kumar and others seeking a declaration and injunction. While several respondents remained ex-parte, Krishan - named as defendant no. 1 - chose not to file his written statement within the time legally permitted.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside Bombay High Court's Order for Retrial in 39-kg Ganja Seizure Case
As per the record, he was served summons on 19 December 2024. The standard 30-day window ended on 18 January 2025, and even the outer limit of 90 days allowed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) expired on 18 March 2025. When Krishan eventually moved to file his written statement, the trial court had already closed his right on 1 April 2025. His subsequent attempts to recall that order and condone the delay were rejected by the trial court on 22 July 2025.
Petitioner's Stand
Arguing before the High Court, Krishan’s counsel said the written statement was still submitted within 120 days, so the trial court should have shown 'some leniency'. He explained that Krishan was waiting to obtain certified copies from another related litigation, which he believed were essential to prepare his defence.
Read also:- Supreme Court Quashes Cheating Case Against Himachal Stone Crusher Owners After Five-Year Delay
"This was not a case of negligence," the lawyer submitted, urging the High Court to take a pragmatic approach.
Court's Observations
Justice Kathpalia was not convinced. The bench noted that the trial court had already examined this excuse and found it unpersuasive.
"Those documents were at the most a piece of evidence and not the facts to be pleaded in the Written Statement," the judge observed.
He pointed out that Krishan could have filed his defence on time and later added evidence from the other case if needed.
"Nothing prevented the petitioner from taking inspection of the documents of the other suit… instead of waiting for certified copies," the bench remarked, adding that the whole exercise appeared to be "a ruse to explain the delay."
Read also:- Calcutta High Court rejects Amit Kumar Singh's revision plea in domestic violence case, affirms remand order
The court also reminded that while judges do have discretion to condone delay even beyond 90 days, this power is meant for "exceptional circumstances." Simply seeking more time for certified copies, the court said, does not fall under that category.
Decision
Concluding that the trial court’s order did not suffer from any error, Justice Kathpalia firmly dismissed Krishan’s petition.
"I am unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order, so the same is upheld," the bench declared, shutting the door on his plea.
With that, the High Court confirmed that the defendant’s right to file a written statement in the civil suit remains closed, effectively ending his bid to enter a late defence.
Case Title: Sh. Kewal Krishan vs. Sh. Gulshan Kumar & Ors.
Case no.: CM(M) 1806/2025
