Can courts accept written statements beyond 120-day deadline? Delhi High Court larger bench to decide

The Delhi High Court recently referred to a larger bench the question of whether courts can permit defendants in civil suits to file their written statements beyond the prescribed 120-day deadline. [Yogesh Taneja v. Vinay Taneja]

A Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar expressed disagreement with earlier decisions of coordinate benches holding that the 120-day deadline under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 is mandatory and cannot be extended.

The Court was of the prima facie view that the provision is procedural in nature and should be interpreted in accordance with Supreme Court judgments permitting extensions in exceptional circumstances.

The Bench observed that the language of the Delhi High Court Rules was substantially similar to the corresponding provision of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which the Supreme Court had interpreted as directory rather than mandatory.

"Thus, applying the same principle, the only possible interpretation is that Rule 4 of DHC Rules is also directory in nature, leaving the same discretion with the High Court, as is available to any other Courts to which Order VIII Rule 1 CPC applies," the Court said.

The Court was hearing a suit initially instituted as a commercial dispute. However, on May 5, 2025, a single judge held that it was not a commercial dispute and directed that it proceed as an ordinary civil suit.

When the defendants failed to file their written statement within the prescribed period, the Joint Registrar closed their right to do so on January 20, 2026. A single judge subsequently upheld that decision on July 23, 2026, holding that the written statement had not been filed even within 120 days from May 5, 2025.

The defendants challenged the order before the Division Bench.

The Division Bench noted that the Supreme Court, in Kailash v. Nanhku and Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, had held that procedural deadlines for filing written statements under the CPC could be extended in exceptional cases.

However, earlier Division Benches of the Delhi High Court, including in the cases Ram Sarup Lugani, Manhar Sabharwal and Delhi Gymkhana Club, had held that the 120-day deadline under the High Court's Original Side Rules was mandatory.

The Bench in this case disagreed with this interpretation. It pointed out that when the Delhi High Court framed its Original Side Rules in 2018, stricter provisions governing commercial disputes were already in force.

"High Court while framing DHC Rules did not choose the language provided for commercial courts but choose that for the civil courts," the Bench observed.

The Bench also held that only the Court could extend the deadline for filing written statements, while the Registrar exercised merely ministerial powers. Disagreeing with earlier Division Bench rulings, it referred three questions concerning the 120-day deadline, the Registrar's powers and appeals against Registrar's orders to a larger bench.

The appellants were represented by Advocates Anshul Sharma and Vishesh Tomar.

Advocate Ishaan Seth appeared for the respondent.

[Read Judgment]