Indrani Basu Roy Vs Jagabandhu Banerjee — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Indrani Basu Roy Vs Jagabandhu Banerjee — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Written statement to be filed before the learned Trial Court within five working days (advance copy to plaintiff/its counsel); defence of the defendant restored; Rs.8,000/- cost imposed on the petitioner/defendant, payable to the respondent/plaintiff on the next date fixed (22.05.2025).

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/defendant's defence, struck off by Trial Court order dated 09.12.2024 because the written statement was filed beyond the permissible outer limit of ninety days (two days late) with no condonation application, should be restored by taking the written statement on record. +1 more

Court's answer

Keeping in view the overall facts and the concession by counsel for the respondent, the present petition is allowed with the direction that the written statement, if not already filed, be filed before the learned Trial Court within five working days, with an advance copy supplied to the plaintiff/learned counsel for plaintiff.

Ratio / Principle

For causing delay in the matter, the petitioner/defendant is burdened with a cost of Rs.8,000/-, to be paid to the respondent/plaintiff on the next date fixed before the learned Trial Court, stated to be 22.05.2025.

Key takeaways

The defence of the defendant stands restored in the aforesaid terms.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CM(M) 649/2025 (Delhi High Court, Justice Manoj Jain, oral judgment dated 07.04.2025): The petitioner, a defendant defending a suit for recovery, was aggrieved by the learned Trial Court's order dated 09.12.2024 whereby her defence was struck off because the written statement had not been submitted within the statutory period (a mere two days beyond the ninety-day outer limit) and no condonation application had been filed. Counsel for petitioner argued that provisions for filing written statements in regular (non-commercial) suits are merely directory and the delay should have been condoned. Counsel for respondent/plaintiff, appearing on advance notice, admitted the two-day delay but, to avoid further delay in his suit, graciously conceded that he had no objection to the written statement being taken on record subject to imposition of cost. Relying on this concession, the Court allowed the petition: the written statement, if not already filed, to be filed before the Trial Court within five working days with an advance copy to the plaintiff; Rs.8,000/- cost imposed on the petitioner/defendant payable to the respondent/plaintiff on the next date fixed (22.05.2025); and the defendant's defence restored in those terms. The petition, along with pending applications (CM APPL. 20561-20562/2025), was disposed of. The Court itself did not rule on whether the written-statement provision is directory or mandatory; the resolution rests on counsel's concession.

$~94

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 7^th April, 2025

- CM(M) 649/2025 & CM APPL. 20561-20562/2025

INDRANI BASU ROY .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate.

versus

JAGABANDHU BANERJEE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Swarup Sagar Roy, Advocate (through V.C.)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

Petitioner is defending a suit for recovery and is aggrieved by order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court observing that since the written statement has not been submitted within the statutory period and no application seeking condonation of delay has been filed either, her defence has been struck off.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant, there is a delay of mere two days, beyond the permissible outer limit of ninety days in filing the written statement and since the suit was regular in nature, not a commercial one, and since the provision with respect to filing of a written statement in a regular suit is merely directory in nature, the Court should have condoned the delay and should have taken the written statement on record.

Mr. Swarup Sagar Roy, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff appears on advance notice. He submits that he is representing the

Signature Not Verified

CM(M) 649/2025 1

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 8.04.2025 16:08:20

respondent/plaintiff before the learned Trial Court also. He does admit the fact that when the matter was taken up on 09.12.2024 by the learned Trial Court, there was a delay of two days beyond the outer limit of ninety days. He, however, submits that no reason had been assigned by the petitioner/defendant as to why she had not filed the written statement within the initial permitted period and, therefore, though there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, he would, without prejudice to his rights and contentions and in order to ensure that there is no further delay in his own suit, have no objection if the written statement is directed to be taken on record, albeit ,subject to imposition of cost.

Keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the gracious concession given by Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent, the present petition is allowed with the directions that the written statement, if not already filed, be filed before the learned Trial Court within five working days from today. Advance copy thereof be also supplied to plaintiff/learned counsel for plaintiff. Moreover, for causing delay in the matter, the petitioner/defendant is also burdened with a cost of Rs.8,000/- . Such cost be paid to the respondent/plaintiff on next date fixed before the learned Trial Court which is stated to be 22.05.2025. Needless to say, the defence of the defendant stands restored in aforesaid terms.

The present petition, along with the pending applications, is disposed of in view of above terms.

(MANOJ JAIN)

JUDGE

APRIL 7, 2025 st/shs

Signature Not Verified

CM(M) 649/2025

2

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 8.04.2025 16:08:20