Disposed¶19

Manoj Babbar & Anr. v. Dr. Er. Rajainderr Jaina & Ors.

Delhi HC18 Jul 2025CM(M)/933/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CM(M) 933/2025, Delhi High Court, decided 18 July 2025, Manoj Jain, J. Manoj Babbar & Anr. (defendant Nos. 2 and 3) v. Dr. Er. Rajainderr Jaina & Ors. Keywords: closure of right to file written statement; written statement deemed on record; timeline for written statement directory not mandatory; equal treatment of similarly situated defendants; cost for delay Rs. 30,000; suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and damages/mesne profits; service on 06.10.2023; orders dated 20.03.2024 and 24.04.2025; next date of hearing 28.07.2025; counsel Nimish Chib, Aggarwal, Harita Mehta (MCD).

What did the court decide?

Written statement filed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on 01.07.2024 deemed to be on record; petitioners directed to pay cost of Rs. 30,000/- to the plaintiff on the next date of hearing (28.07.2025); petition disposed of. ¶19

Manoj Babbar & Anr. Vs Dr. Er. Rajainderr Jaina & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's orders closing the right of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to file their written statement (20.03.2024) and dismissing their application challenging that closure (24.04.2025) suffer from illegality or perversity. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

To the extent that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 made no request on receipt of summons and approached the Court only after more than five months, this Court finds no illegality and perversity in the impugned order.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

In a regular suit, the timeline provided for filing of written statement is directory and not mandatory and rigid.

¶16

Key takeaways

Keeping in mind the overall facts, the indulgence given to the similarly situated defendant No.1, and the interest of justice, the written statement filed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on 01.07.2024 is deemed to be on record.ratio¶17
For causing delay in the matter, the petitioners are burdened with a cost of Rs. 30,000/-, payable to the plaintiff on the next date of hearing stated to be 28.07.2025.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF DELHI (Manoj Jain, J.), decided 18.07.2025 — CM(M) 933/2025, Manoj Babbar & Anr. v. Dr. Er. Rajainderr Jaina & Ors. Petitioners, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and damages/mesne profits, challenged the Trial Court's order dated 24.04.2025 dismissing their application and refusing to interfere with the order dated 20.03.2024 closing their right to file written statement (they had been served on 06.10.2023 and did not file for over five months). The Court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order to that extent, noting they never sought complete documents promptly. However, observing that in a regular suit the timeline for filing a written statement is directory and not mandatory and rigid, and that the Trial Court had on the same date granted indulgence to defendant No.1 (son of the plaintiff) whose plea was almost similar, the Court deemed the written statement filed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on 01.07.2024 to be on record, while burdening them with a cost of Rs. 30,000/- payable to the plaintiff on the next date of hearing (28.07.2025). Petition disposed of.

¶1

$~75

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 18^th July, 2025

¶4

- CM(M) 933/2025 & CM APPL. 30527-30528/2025

¶5

MANOJ BABBAR & ANR. .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Nimish Chib, Advocate.

¶7

versus

¶8

DR. ER. RAJAINDERR JAINA & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aggarwal, Advocate. Ms. Harita Mehta, Advocate for MCD.

¶9

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

¶10

Petitioners are defendant Nos. 2 and 3 before the learned Trial Court take exception to order dated 24.04.2025 whereby their application has been dismissed by learned Trial Court and it has refused to interfere with its previous order dated 20.03.2024 whereby their right to file written statement was closed.

¶11

The suit in question seeks permanent and mandatory injunction and also damages/ mesne profits.

¶12

Plaintiff happens to be the father of the defendant No.1.

¶13

As far as defendant No.1 is concerned, his written statement has been taken on record.

¶14

Learned counsel for defendant Nos. 2 and 3 submits that his case was,

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:2 1.07.2025 14:31:33

¶16

CM(M) 933/2025

¶17

¶18

virtually, similar to defendant No.1 and even defendant No.1 had not received the complete set of documents and when his counsel appeared before the learned Trial Court on 20.03.2024 and made a complaint in this regard, learned Trial Court treated defendant No.1 differently, and rather provided him with the complete set of plaint and annexures from the judicial file and permitted him to even take photographs of some of the pages from the judicial file and, thereafter, directed him to file written statement within a period of 30 days.

¶19

It is argued that the case of defendant Nos.2 and 3 was also similar as they had not received the complete plaint and annexures, along with the summons and when they tried to highlight the abovesaid aspect before the learned Trial Court, their right to file written statement was closed, merely on the ground that they had been served on 06.10.2023 and despite expiry of more than five months, they had not bothered to file any written statement.

¶20

One thing is, indeed, intriguing. If at all, the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were not served with the complete set of plaint and documents, there was no one to have prevented them to have immediately come to the Court with appropriate request.

¶21

However, they did not take any step in this regard and rather appeared before the learned Trial Court after more than five months and, thereafter, they made a request in this regard and sought time to file written statement.

¶22

Needless to emphasize, the initial period of filing written statement is 30 days and, therefore, once summons are served, any defendant should make best endeavor to file written statement within the abovesaid initial period of

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

CM(M) 933/2025

¶25

¶26

Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:2 1.07.2025 14:31:33

¶27

30 days.

¶28

If at all, any such person has some grievance with respect to the documents, not being complete or for that matter not legible enough, instead of coming to the Court after four or five months, it should rather approach the Court within the abovesaid given 30 days with appropriate request.

¶29

For the reasons best known to the petitioners herein, they did not make any such request on receipt of the summons, which according to them was not accompanying complete set of plaint.

¶30

To that extent, this Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned order.

¶31

However, admittedly, the plea taken by defendant No.1 (son of the plaintiff) was also almost similar and the learned Trial Court, on same date, somehow, granted him indulgence and he was not only given complete set of plaint and documents but was also given further time to file written statement.

¶32

Learned counsel for respondents appear on advance notice and leaves it to the Court to pass appropriate order.

¶33

When asked, both the sides, in all fairness, apprised that the pleadings are yet not complete and the issues have yet not been framed.

¶34

The suit in question is a regular suit and, admittedly, the timeline provided for filing of written statement is directory and not mandatory and rigid.

¶35

Though, the petitioners should have been watchful and cautious and

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

CM(M) 933/2025

¶38

¶39

Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:2 1.07.2025 14:31:33

¶40

should have, immediately, approached the learned Trial Court, if they were of the view that they were not provided with the complete set of plaint, keeping in mind the overall facts of the case and the fact that indulgence was given to defendant No.1, who was also, almost, similarly situated and in the interest of justice, the present petition is disposed of with direction that the written statement filed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on 01.07.2024 shall be deemed to be on record.

¶41

However, for causing delay in the matter, the petitioners are burdened with a cost of Rs. 30,000/-, which shall be paid to the plaintiff on the next date of hearing, which is stated to be 28.07.2025.

¶42

The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶43

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶44

JULY 18, 2025 /sw/JS

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

CM(M) 933/2025

¶47

¶48

Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:2 1.07.2025 14:31:33

Manoj Babbar & Anr. v. Dr. Er. Rajainderr Jaina & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Babbar & Anr. v. Dr. Er. Rajainderr Jaina & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charan Dass & Ors. Vs Mukesh Kumar

Piyush Goyal Vs Om Prakash & Anr.

Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee Vs Narjeet Singh Sachdeva & Anr.

Manisha Rao Vs Asjeet Singh Lamba

Shri Ajay Sharma Vs Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma

Ram Lal Ahuja and Anr. Vs Inder Ahuja

Union of India through General Manager Northern Railway Vs Sh Prakash Mani Tripathi & Ors.

Prem Raj Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Charan Dass & Ors. Vs Mukesh Kumar

Saurabh Kumar @ Sagar Vs Union of India

Piyush Goyal Vs Om Prakash & Anr.

Lakshay Gupta Vs Gaurav Rathi

Suresh Malhotra Vs Ballabh Singh