VIRENDER KUMAR BHARDWAJ vs MUNCIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 03rd July, 2024
+ CM(M) 2834/2024
VIRENDER KUMAR BHARDWAJ …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pawan Kapoor, Advocate.
versus
MUNCIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER …..Respondent
Through: Ms. Anshula L. Bakhru, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
CM APPL. 36342/2024 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CM(M) 2834/2024 & CM APPL. 36341/2024 (stay)
1. Petitioner, who happens to be a senior citizen, had filed a suit against respondent/MCD.
2. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court by filing present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and his grievance is that the respondent/MCD should not have been permitted to file written statement, which had been filed after a delay of 220 days.
3. Learned counsel for MCD, who appears on advance notice, does admit that there was a delay but it was of 166 days. She has also contended that the delay had occasioned as the relevant file pertaining to the plaintiffs matter was not traceable in the Department.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to various orders passed by the learned Trial Court from time to time and submits that the intention of defendant/MCD is merely to delay the matter on one pretext or other.
5. Admittedly, the written statement has already been filed before the learned Trial Court on 25.02.2023.
6. Undoubtedly, MCD is a big Government Department and this civic agency must be handling innumerable matters but that does not give any automatic handle to MCD to file written statement as per its own whims and fancies.
7. There are specified timelines which should normally be adhered to and it is only under exceptional circumstances or extreme exigencies that the Courts should condone delay.
8. Be that as it may, during the course of consideration of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner has, very fairly, submitted that he would not press for any further relief and would be satisfied if reasonable cost is imposed as because of the non-cooperation shown by the MCD, the matter pertaining to a senior citizen has already got delayed considerably.
9. Undoubtedly, the time for filing written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC in context of ordinary suits, is not a mandatory one and undoubtedly, the Court has ample power to condone the delay but at the same time, if it comes to the notice of the Court that the delay is excessive or without any justifiable ground, then, whenever, it chooses to condone such delay, other side should be adequately compensated with costs.
10. In the present case, the learned Trial Court has though taken the written statement on record but there is no imposition of cost. Keeping in mind the facts placed before me and the fact that the petitioner happens to be a senior citizen, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondent MCD shall pay cost of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner (plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) for filing written statement belatedly. Let it be paid on 16.10.2024 when the matter is fixed before the learned Trial Court.
11. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE
JULY 03, 2024
st
CM(M) 2834/2024 1