Introduction 

• This case deals with the discretionary power of the court to allow for condonation beyond the specified period. 

Facts 

• In this case, the plaintiff filed a case and application for interim order under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & Rule 2. 
• Court passed Ex-parte ad - interim order. 
• Defendant filed his written statement accompanied with an application seeking condonation of delay. 
• Plaintiff objected to the application of condonation of delay. 
• The period specified under Rule 4 of Delhi High Court rules specifies that condonation of delay cannot be requested for a period beyond 90 days.   
• Defendant did not specify any justifiable cause for his delay. 
• Defendant contended that in non-commercial matters it is in the court’s discretion to grant condonation of delay beyond 90 days as per order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. 

Issue Involved  

• Whether delay in filing of written statement can be condoned or not? 

Observations 

• The High Court referred to the case of Ram Sarup Lugani & Ors v. Nirmal Lugani & Ors. (2020) to discuss the limited jurisdiction of the court. 
  • The court observed based on the ruling of the judgement that condonation of delay can only be granted up to 90 days and not beyond it. 
• The court observed that Rule 4 of DHC is procedural, and a liberal view can be taken by the court but that does not mean that this rule can be completely ignored. 

Conclusion 

• The High Court, after referring to the cases and rules of CPC and DHC concluded that condonation cannot be granted beyond 90 days and rejected the application of defendant for condonation of delay.