$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010337942026 + C.R.P. 215/2026 & CM APPL. 48815/2026 HARDEV SINGH DHALIWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pushp Sen, Mr. Rachit Sehajpal, Ms. Komal Sharma, Advocates. versus HARVINDER KAUR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Viney Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 07.08.2026 1. This petition has been filed assailing order dated 28th April 2026, passed by District Judge, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CS DJ No. 220/2021, whereby, petitioner's/defendant’s application under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking condonation of a delay of 1,040 days in filing the written statement was dismissed on the ground that no sufficient cause had been shown. 2. Counsel for petitioner/defendant points out that summons were received on 08th October 2021 and 90 days were still available under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC for filing the written statement. 3. However, on 04th January 2022, the petitioner's/defendant’s right to file written statement was struck off. It is further submitted that a proxy counsel had appeared on that date and, immediately thereafter, a vakalatnama was filed by the present counsel on 07th July 2022. Various other reasons were given in the application for the delay in representing themselves before the Court. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 12:12:13 4. Mr. Viney Sharma, counsel appears for the respondent/plaintiff, pursuant to notice issued on 29th July 2026. He points out that, despite the proxy counsel being present not only on 07th July 2022, but previously on 04th January 2022, the counsel for petitioner/defendant appeared on 23rd August 2022, by moving an application under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, after the summons had been issued way back in March 2021. 5. This is a matter between a septuagenarian husband and wife, who have been separated for more than 20 years and respondent/plaintiff (wife) has sought possession of the shop that was bought in her name. The petitioner/defendant (husband) objected to the same, as a result of which the suit was filed. 6. Mr. Pushp Sen, counsel for petitioner/defendant, in his support, placed reliance upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chanchal Goel & Anr. v. Alok Malani 2023:DHC:2913, where the Court has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 480 and stated that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC are procedural and not mandatory and the Court is not denuded of its part to condone the delay, so that the party does not go unheard. 7. Mr. Sharma, counsel for respondent/plaintiff, however, contends that this judgment is easily distinguishable on facts, since in that matter the written statement was filed within 30 days beyond the original statutory period of 30 days, provided under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, unlike this matter, where the written statement was filed after 229 days of delay, after the completion of statutory period of 90 days as provided under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. 8. Reasons which were provided for the delay, as also stated in the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 12:12:13 impugned order, are not tenable in the opinion of this Court. The fact that the suit was pending would have been within the knowledge of petitioner/defendant, considering that the proxy counsel had appeared previously. Despite that, the written statement was only filed much later, along with the application under Order VIII Rule 1. 9. Moreover, the dilation on behalf of petitioner/defendant is also evident from the order dated 07th July 2022, when respondent/plaintiff was examined and an opportunity was given to the counsel appearing for petitioner/defendant to cross examine the witness but yet again, an adjournment was sought, which was declined and the witness was discharged. 10. It, therefore, seems that the petitioner/defendant was only interested in delaying the matter and in the opinion of this Court, there does not seem to be enough reason to condone the delay. Moreover, it is also noted that the matter is now listed for final arguments on 17th August 2026 before the Trial Court. 11. Mr. Viney Sharma, counsel for respondent/plaintiff states that, in case the parties are available before the Trial Court on that day, they will be open to discussing possibilities of a settlement. 12. Noting the above, the petition is disposed of. Pending application is rendered infructuous. 13. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J AUGUST 7, 2026/ak/sp This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 12:12:13