Appeal against dismissal of two applications seeking condonation of delay in filing replications to written statements in a suit over shares in an estate. The Division Bench held Rule 6 excludes closure of the Registry, not judicial vacations, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~
% Judgment reserved on: 22.07.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 29.07.2025 + FAO(OS) 77/2025 PARAMJIT SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Mr. Kshitij Palliwal, Mr. Sumit Saini, Mr. Prabhpreet Singh Wadhwa, Mr. Vipul Biala and Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Advocates.
versus
HARDAMAN SINGH ANAND & ORS. ...Respondents Through: Mr. Prashant Mehta, Mr. Dhruv Chawla, Mr. Vaibhav Chawla and Ms. Aadya Sinha, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 1(A) to 3. Mr. Siddharth A. Advocate for Respondent No. 1 (B). Mr. Aviral Tiwari, Advocate for Respondent No. 4. Mr. Dhiraj Sachdeva, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1 CPC
2 Impugned Order
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 30.0 7.2025 15:30:16
FAO (OS) 77/2025 Page 1 of 12
learned Single Judge of this Court in CS(OS) 166/2023 titled as Paramjit Singh vs. Hardaman Singh & Ors .
A. A civil suit was filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant herein seeking declaration of the Appellant’s share in the estate in question, for rendition of bank accounts and permanent and mandatory injunction.
B. On 07.03.2023, notice was issued in the suit. The counsel for Defendant/Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the counsel for Defendant/Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, entered appearance.
C. Vide Order dated 09.05.2023, written statement on behalf of Defendant/Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was taken on record and a period of four weeks was given to the Appellant to file replication. The written statement on behalf of Defendant/Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was taken on record vide Order dated 15.05.2023.
D. On 17.07.2023, the Appellant/Plaintiff filed replication to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 30.0 7.2025 15:30:16
FAO (OS) 77/2025 Page 2 of 12
both above-mentioned written statements along with two applications; the first application bearing I. A. No. 15437 of 2023 was filed under Section 151 of the CPC for condonation of delay of 16 days in filing of Replication to the written statement of Defendant/Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the second application bearing I.A. No. 15441 of 2023 was filed under Section 151 of the CPC for condonation of delay of 22 days in filing of Replication to the written statement of Defendant/Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
E. The grounds for delay in filing the two replications, as stated in both applications, are similar. The Appellant submitted that delay was due to the summer vacation of the Court and the unavailability of his counsel. Further, it was submitted that the Appellant is a senior citizen and has multiple age-related ailments.
F. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned Order dismissed both the applications.
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:
“5. Replication.- The replication, if any, shall be filed within 30 days of receipt of the written statement. If the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by sufficient cause for exceptional and unavoidable reasons in filing the replication within 30 days, it may extend the time for filing the same by a further period not exceeding 15 days but not thereafter. For such extension, the plaintiff shall be burdened with costs, as deemed appropriate. The replication shall not be taken on record, unless such costs have been paid/ deposited. In case no
3 Rules, 2018
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 30.0 7.2025 15:30:16
FAO (OS) 77/2025 Page 3 of 12
replication is filed within the extended time also, the Registrar shall forthwith place the matter for appropriate orders before the Court. An advance copy of the replication together with legible copies of all documents in possession and power of plaintiff, that it seeks to file along with the replication, shall be served on the defendant and the replication together with the said documents shall not be accepted unless it contains an endorsement of service signed by the defendant/ his Advocate.”
“6. Period how calculated. —Where a particular number of days are prescribed by these Rules or by or under any other law, or is fixed by the Court for doing any act, the starting day from which the said period is to be reckoned shall be excluded, and if the last day expires on a day when the office of the Court is closed for the day or a part thereof, that day and any succeeding day(s) on which the Court remains closed for the day or a part thereof, shall also be excluded.”
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 30.0 7.2025 15:30:16
FAO (OS) 77/2025 Page 4 of 12
Supreme Court as “Partial Working days”), the entire period of the vacations being days when the Court was closed would have to be excluded and the period for reckoning the condonable period would commence from the first working day after the reopening of the Court. 11. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the said Rule 6, Chapter I of the Rules, 2018 does not make any distinction between prescribed period and condonable period and, therefore, even in respect of the condonable period, Rule 6, Chapter I of the Rules, 2018 would have to apply and the entire period during which the Court was not working would need to be excluded from the calculation of the period of limitation.
“ 16. Read in conjunction with the facts, Rule 6 squarely applies to the present scenario. The expiry of the 15th and final condonable day on a Court holiday brings the case within the protective ambit of Rule 6. Accordingly, the replication filed on 15.04.2024, the immediate next working day, cannot be considered belated. The language of Rule 6 does not draw a distinction between the prescribed and condonable periods, and once the Court is closed on the last day of any period prescribed, or fixed by law or the Court, the benefit of exclusion applies. Hence, the replication filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is within the permissible time limit. 17. As regards the contention advanced by learned counsel for defendant Nos. 1 and 2, relying on the decision in Rajpath Contractors & Engineers Ltd . to argue that the benefit of Section 4 of the Act applies only to the prescribed period and not to the condonable period, it is correct that the Supreme Court adopted such a view. However, it is significant to note that the said decision arose in the context of an arbitration proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as „Arbitration Act‟). The Court therein examined the interface between Section 4 of the Act and the statutory timelines prescribed under the Arbitration Act, and, while affirming the strict
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 30.0 7.2025 15:30:16
FAO (OS) 77/2025 Page 5 of 12
separation between the prescribed and condonable periods, also acknowledged that such a rigid construction effectively precluded any relief in light of the legislative intent for expedition embedded in the Arbitration Act. The observations of the Supreme Court must, therefore, be understood within the specific statutory framework governing arbitral disputes, which prioritizes finality and speed over procedural flexibility, and such interpretation should not be dovetailed with matters of purely civil nature.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
13. It is also apposite to refer to Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 19634 , which reads as follows:
“ 4. Expiry of prescribed period when court is closed.— Where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court re-opens.
Explanation.—A court shall be deemed to be closed on any day within the meaning of this section if during any part of its normal working hours it remains closed on that day.”
RESPONDENTS’ CONTENTIONS:
4 Limitation Act
5 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5945
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 30.0 7.2025 15:30:16
FAO (OS) 77/2025 Page 6 of 12
“ 6. A long course of decisions have held that a Court is not closed notwithstanding the fact that Judges do not sit on any day if otherwise the Court is open on that day. Harries, C.J., during the course of the arguments in Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Girdhari Lal Chaudhuri [AIR 1939 Pat 667 : 185 IC 353 : ILR 19 Pat 123] observed that “Saturday” is a Court day although the Judges are not sitting on that day. The learned Chief Justice and Fazl Ali, J., as he then was, (Agarwala, J., dissenting) went to the extent of holding that even in the vacations the Court is not closed and money can be
6 (1974) 2 SCC 133
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 30.0 7.2025 15:30:16
FAO (OS) 77/2025 Page 7 of 12
deposited. Turner, C.J., speaking for himself, Kernan, Kindersley and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ., (Innes, J., dissenting) observed in Nachiyappa Mudali v. Ayyasami Ayyar: [ILR (1882) 5 Mad 189, 192]
“The judicial sittings of the Court may be adjourned; but the offices of the Court may still remain open for the presentation of pleadings. The Court may be open for this purpose although the Judge is not engaged in judicial functions or is not present in the Court-house or in the place where the Court is held.”
A Bench of the Madras High Court in In re Thokkudubivyanu Immaniyelu [AIR 1948 Mad 521 : (1948) 1 MLJ 49] dealt with a similar practice which is followed by all High Courts and this Court for the summer vacation when the Courts close. The notifications in respect thereof specify a period between Monday to Friday both days inclusive as the vacation. The Court reopens on a Saturday, but judicial work starts only on the following Monday. It was held that the first day of the Court was a Saturday which was the day for receiving papers though the Judges actually sat for judicial work on Monday, as such an application, for which the prescribed period of limitation expired on Saturday the 5th when the Court was open and was not filed on that day, but on Monday the 7th, was held to be barred. See also Dwarka Prasad v. Union of India; [AIR 1954 Pat 284 : ILR 1954 Pat 176] and Sajjansingh v. Bhogilal Pandya [AIR 1958 Raj 307 : ILR (1958) 8 Raj 912] .”
(Emphasis supplied)
7 (2016) 14 SCC 314
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA FAO (OS) 77/2025 Signing Date: 30.0 7.2025 15:30:16
Page 8 of 12
ANALYSIS
“I.A. 15437/2023 (for condonation of delay)
1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the replication to the written statement of defendant nos. 1 and 3.
2. Although, the application prays for condonation of 16 days‟ delay, what the applicant intends to plead is, that the delay is of 16 days beyond the statutorily permissible period of 45 days. The applicant is therefore, seeking condonation of delay of 61 days and not 16 days.
3. In view of the judgement of the Division Bench in Ram Swaroop Lugani & Another v. Nirmal Lugani [2020 SCC OnLine Del 1353 at paras 21 to 25], and in view of the Rule 5 Chapter VII, Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, the relief sought is not permissible and barred in law.
4. Even otherwise, the grounds set out in the application do not make out any sufficient ground for condonation of delay.
5. The application stands dismissed.
I.A. 15441/2023 (for condonation of delay)
6. This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking condonation of delay of 22 days in filing of replication to the written statement of defendant nos. 5 and 6.
7. Although the application prays for condonation of 22 days‟ delay, what the applicant intends to plead is, that the delay is of 22 days beyond the statutorily permissible period of 55 days. The applicant is therefore, seeking condonation of delay of 77 days and not 22 days as pleaded.
8. In view of the judgement of the Division Bench in Ram Swaroop Lugani (supra) and in view of the Rule 5 Chapter VII, Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, the relief sought is not permissible and barred in law.
9. Even otherwise, the grounds set out in the application do not make out sufficient grounds for condonation of delay.
10. The application stands dismissed.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 30.0 7.2025 15:30:16
FAO (OS) 77/2025 Page 9 of 12
Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was supposed to be filed by 14.06.2023. However, the replications along with their respective applications for condonation of delay came to be filed only on 17.07.2023. For the sake of convenience, a tabular representation of the timelines with respect to both the IAs is as follows:
| I. A. No. 15437 of 2023- for condonation of delay | of 16 days in |
|---|---|
| filing replication to written statement of |
Defendant/ |
| Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 | |
| Commencement of the limitation | 15.05.2023 |
| Expiry of 30-Day Period under Rule 5, Chapter | 14.06.2023 |
| VII | |
| Expiry of Condonable Period of 15 days, which commenced after the expiry of Prescribed Period under Rule 5, Chapter VII |
29.06.2023 |
| I. A. No. 15441 of 2023- for condonation of delay | of 22 days in |
| filing replication to written statement of |
Defendant/ |
| Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 | |
| Commencement of the limitation period | 09.05.2023 |
| Expiry of 30-Day Period under Rule 5, Chapter VII |
08.06.2023 |
| Expiry of Condonable Period of 15 days, which commenced after the expiry of Prescribed Period under Rule 5, Chapter VII |
23.06.2023 |
| Both IAs admittedly filed on | 17.07.2023 |
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 30.0 7.2025 15:30:16
FAO (OS) 77/2025 Page 10 of 12
closed but for reckoning of the period to be excluded from when the “office of the Court is closed” . The fundamental fallacy of the Appellant’s argument lies in the attempt to ignore the words “office of the”.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 30.0 7.2025 15:30:16
FAO (OS) 77/2025 Page 11 of 12
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
JULY 29, 2025/ v/ er
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA FAO (OS) 77/2025 Page 12 of 12 Signing Date: 30.0 7.2025 15:30:16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Rule 6, Chapter I of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 excludes vacation days from both the prescribed and condonable periods for filing replications.
Whether delay beyond the maximum permissible period under Rule 5, Chapter VII could be condoned where the condonable period expired during Court vacations.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anil Jain v. Paritosh JainExplained¶24
Anil Jain v. Paritosh Jain (Order dated 03.07.2025 in CS(OS) 243/2021)
Manhar Sabharwal v. High Court of DelhiReferred¶14
Manhar Sabharwal v. High Court of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5945 · Who else cites this
Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain MishraRelied on¶23
Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, (1974) 2 SCC 133 · Who else cites this
Ajay Gupta v. RajuReferred
Ajay Gupta v. Raju, (2016) 14 SCC 314 · Who else cites this
Ram Swaroop Lugani & Another v. Nirmal LuganiRelied on¶20
Ram Swaroop Lugani & Another v. Nirmal Lugani, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1353 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 4 enactments
Paramjit Singh
Hardaman Singh Anand & Ors.
Anil Kshetarpal
Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal to a Division Bench against an order made by a single judge on the original side of the High Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
