Delhi High Court to decide whether written statement without affidavit of admission/denial is void

The Delhi High Court has asked a larger bench to decide whether the filing of written statements in the statutory 120-day period without an affidavit of admission/denial of documents renders it void. 

Justice Subramonium Prasad referred the issue to a larger bench after noting that coordinate benches of the High Court have rendered contrary findings on the issue. 

It added that the issue is arising frequently and, therefore, it is expedient that the same be put to rest on an urgent basis. 

“The question that arises for determination is whether the filing of a Written Statement within the statutory period prescribed under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, but without being accompanied by an affidavit of admission/denial of documents, renders such filing non-est in law or whether the absence of such affidavit constitutes a curable defect, permitting the Written Statement to be taken on record upon subsequent compliance of filing an affidavit of admission/denial of documents… Accordingly, let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench to decide the present issue,” the Court ordered. 

The issue arose after South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) filed its written statement in a civil suit filed against them by an entity named VK Sood PIL JV.

The written statement was filed within the stipulated time but the affidavit of admission/denial was submitted only after the deadline.

Justice Prasad noted that on one hand, previous judgments such as Unilin Beheer BV v Balaji Action Buildwell held that a written statement without the affidavit cannot be taken on record at all. On the other hand, decisions including COSCO International Pvt Ltd v Jagat Singh Dugar treated the omission as a curable defect, allowing later compliance.

The Court observed that these conflicting interpretations create uncertainty in the application of the law.

The judge emphasised on the need for judicial consistency and discipline, and held that it would be inappropriate to choose between the competing views at the single-judge level.

Therefore, Justice Prasad referred the matter to a larger bench. 

Advocates Karunesh Tandon, Sarthak Mittal and Prabin Mohan appeared for VK Sood PIL JV.

Standing Counsel Tushar Sannu along with advocates Ankita Bhadouriya and Umesh Kumar represented the SDMC.

[Read Order]