< Back

Case Analysis Mr Lokesh Sharma vs Delhi Public Library 2026 DHC 1439

Synopsis

This judgment, delivered by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, arises from a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging a trial court order. The trial court had dismissed the defendant-petitioner's application seeking an extension of time to file his written statement. The defendant had been served with summons in May 2023 but, instead of filing a written statement, chose to file an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (seeking rejection of the plaint). His right to file the written statement was eventually closed in October 2024. He later sought to file it, citing his advanced age and his wife's critical illness as reasons for the delay. The High Court upheld the trial court's order, holding that these reasons were not sufficient to condone a delay of over a year, especially since the defendant was represented by counsel and had actively pursued other legal remedies during that period.

1. Heading for the Judgment

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Cm(M) 347/2026 & Cm Appls. 9616-9618/2026, 11058/2026

Mr. Lokesh Sharma ....Petitioner

Versus

Delhi Public Library ....Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta

Date of Decision: 18th FEBRUARY, 2026

2. Legal Framework

This judgment operates within the following legal framework:

The Constitution of India:
Article 227: The jurisdiction invoked by the petitioner. This article grants the High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction. The court's role under this article is to ensure that subordinate courts function within the bounds of their authority and do not commit any jurisdictional error. It is not an appellate power to correct every error of fact or law.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):
Order VIII Rule 1: This is the central provision governing the filing of a written statement. It mandates that the defendant shall file a written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons. The proviso allows the court to extend this time up to a maximum of 90 days from the date of service of summons, for reasons to be recorded in writing.
Order VII Rule 11: The provision under which the petitioner filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that it does not disclose a cause of action or is otherwise barred by law.
Section 148: Relates to the enlargement of time.
Section 151: Saves the inherent powers of the court.
Principles of Procedural Law:
Purpose of Time Limits: The court noted that the strict timelines in Order VIII Rule 1 are intended to curb the tendency of defendants to prolong trials and delay proceedings, which itself can defeat justice.
Exceptional Circumstances: While courts have the discretion to condone delays beyond 90 days, such discretion must be exercised only in exceptional cases to ensure that procedure does not defeat substantive justice. This principle was drawn from the coordinate bench decision in Gautam Bhowmick v. Prem Chand.

Related Precedents Cited and Relied Upon:

Gautam Bhowmick v. Prem Chand, 167 (2010) DLT 274: (Delhi High Court, Coordinate Bench) - This judgment was heavily relied upon. It established that while time for filing a written statement can be extended beyond 90 days, this discretion must be exercised only in exceptional cases. The judgment also recognized that the procedural amendments were aimed at curbing delaying tactics by defendants.

3. Basic Relevant Facts of the Case

Service of Summons: The petitioner-defendant was served with summons in the suit (CS DJ No. 496/2023) on 20.05.2023.
Initial Non-Filing of Written Statement: Instead of filing a written statement within the prescribed 30 days (or even the extended 90 days), the petitioner chose to file an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint.
Closure of Right: While the petitioner was pursuing his Order VII Rule 11 application, his right to file a written statement was formally closed by the trial court on 21.10.2024. This was more than a year after the initial 90-day period had expired.
Application for Extension: Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Sections 148 and 151 CPC, seeking to extend the time to file the written statement and have it taken on record. The grounds for delay were:
The petitioner's age (70 years).
His wife suffering from a life-threatening illness, requiring regular doctor visits and medical treatment.
Impugned Order: The learned Trial Court dismissed this application on 08.01.2026, holding that the reasons provided were not sufficient to condone a delay of over one year and seven months, especially since the petitioner was represented by counsel and was actively pursuing other litigation (the Order VII Rule 11 application) during that period.
Present Petition: Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Issues in the Judgment

The court addressed the following primary issues:

Correctness of Trial Court's Discretion: Whether the learned Trial Court had erred in the exercise of its discretion by refusing to condone the delay in filing the written statement and dismissing the petitioner's application.
Sufficiency of Cause: Whether the grounds cited by the petitioner (age and wife's illness) constituted "reasonable grounds" or "exceptional circumstances" to justify a delay of over one year in filing the written statement, especially when the petitioner was represented by legal counsel.

5. Ratio Decidendi (The Reasoning of the Court)

The court's reasoning was concise and firmly rooted in the principles of procedural law and the facts of the case.

Petitioner's Conduct is Key: The court noted that after being served with summons on 20.05.2023, the petitioner did not file a written statement. Instead, he actively chose to pursue a different legal remedy—an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. This was a conscious choice made by the petitioner, who was represented by counsel. He cannot now claim that the delay was beyond his control.
Personal Hardships Not a Valid Excuse: The court held that while the petitioner's age and his wife's illness were unfortunate, they could not be accepted as reasonable grounds to condone an inordinate delay of over one year. The fact that the petitioner was appearing through a counsel during this entire period was crucial. The counsel could have filed the written statement even while the other application was pending. The personal hardships did not prevent the defendant from instructing his lawyer to perform this basic procedural act.
Application of Gautam Bhowmick: The court applied the principle from Gautam Bhowmick that condonation of delay beyond 90 days is reserved for "exceptional cases." This case did not present any exceptional circumstances. The delay was considerable, and the reasons were not compelling enough to warrant the exercise of such discretion.
No Infirmity in Impugned Order: The High Court concluded that the trial court's order was a "reasoned order passed in accordance with law" and found no infirmity or jurisdictional error in it that would warrant interference under Article 227.

6. New Legal Framework Established

This judgment does not establish any new legal principle. Its value lies in its role as a clear illustration and reaffirmation of the strict approach courts take towards delays in filing written statements, particularly when the defendant is represented by counsel. It reinforces the following key points:

Pursuing Other Remedies is Not a Valid Excuse: A defendant cannot use the pendency of another application (like one for rejection of plaint) as a shield to justify not filing a written statement. These are separate procedural steps, and the obligation to file a written statement within the statutory timeline (or seek extension for genuine, compelling reasons) remains independent.
Presence of Counsel Dilutes Personal Hardship Arguments: When a party is represented by a lawyer, general personal hardships (age, illness of a family member) are less likely to be accepted as sufficient cause for inordinate delay. The court expects the counsel to manage the litigation and ensure that basic procedural requirements are met, regardless of the party's personal circumstances.

7. Examination and Analysis by the Court

The court's analysis was straightforward and focused on the key aspects of the case.

Timeline Analysis: The court first established the critical dates: service of summons (May 2023), the filing of the Order VII Rule 11 application, and the closure of the right to file a written statement (October 2024). This timeline starkly illustrated the length of the delay.
Scrutiny of Petitioner's Conduct: The court examined what the petitioner did during this period. It found that he was not inactive; he was actively litigating through his counsel, but on a different application. This active pursuit of another remedy undermined his claim that he was unable to file the written statement due to personal hardships.
Application of Precedent: The court recalled the legal position from Gautam Bhowmick, which sets a high bar for condoning delay beyond the 90-day period. It then measured the petitioner's case against this high bar and found it wanting.
Deference to Trial Court: The High Court, in its supervisory jurisdiction, correctly deferred to the trial court's discretionary order, finding it to be reasoned and not perverse.

8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome

Critical Analysis:

This judgment is a strong endorsement of procedural discipline in civil litigation.

Strengths: The judgment's primary strength is its practical and logical approach. It correctly identifies that a party cannot be allowed to "have its cake and eat it too"—pursuing one remedy while using personal problems as an excuse for not complying with a separate, fundamental procedural requirement. The distinction between a party's inability to act and a party's choice to act on something else is crucial. The reliance on Gautam Bhowmick provides a solid legal foundation. The decision sends a clear message that delays will not be condoned lightly, especially when the defendant is legally represented.
Correctness: The decision is legally sound and factually justified. The trial court's order was a reasonable exercise of its discretion. The High Court was right not to interfere.
Potential Impact: This judgment serves as a warning to defendants and their counsel that they must comply with the timelines for filing a written statement. Filing other applications does not stop the clock on this obligation. If a defendant chooses to pursue other remedies, they must ensure the written statement is filed simultaneously or risk having their right to file it foreclosed.

Final Outcome:

The petition was dismissed. The court upheld the trial court's order dated 08.01.2026, finding no merit in the petitioner's challenge. All pending applications were also disposed of.