Three earlier Division Benches treated the 120-day deadline for written statements as mandatory. This Bench has found it directory and asked the Chief Justice to consider a larger bench to settle the question.
New Delhi: Finding that the 120-day deadline for written statements under Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 is directory in nature, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has asked the Chief Justice to consider constituting a larger bench to settle the law, as three earlier Division Bench decisions had treated the limit as mandatory [Yogesh Taneja (since deceased, through LRs) v. Vijay Taneja (since deceased, through LRs)].
FAO(OS) 93/2026 was decided on October 8, 2026 by a Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar, after being reserved on September 3, 2026.
Same words, same result
The Bench read Rule 4 alongside Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which the Supreme Court has held directory in Kailash v. Nanhku and Salem Advocate Bar Association. Rule 4 lets the Court allow a written statement after the prescribed period where the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause for exceptional and unavoidable reasons, for a further period not exceeding 90 days, but not thereafter. Finding the language of the two provisions parallel, the Bench said:
“It cannot be said that either of them is more or less directory/mandatory in nature.”
Its conclusion followed:
“the only possible interpretation is that Rule 4 of DHC Rules is also directory in nature.”
Where it parts ways with earlier Benches
Earlier Division Benches in Ram Sarup Lugani, Delhi Gymkhana Club and Manhar Sabharwal had held Rule 4 mandatory, the Bench noted. It disagreed with their reliance on Section 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on authority drawn from arbitration law. It further held that the Registrar’s power under Rule 4 is only ministerial and that only the Court can extend the time, and it doubted the correctness of Rahul Gupta v. Pratap Singh, which treated Registrar’s orders as reviewable by a Single Judge, as conflicting with the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Orissa v. Commissioner of Land Records.
How the suit reached the Division Bench
The suit began as a commercial dispute, CS (COMM) 236/2024. A Single Judge held on May 5, 2025 that it was not a commercial dispute, and it was renumbered CS(OS) 367/2025. The defendants did not file their written statement in time, and the Joint Registrar (Judicial) closed their right to file it on January 20, 2026. Their chamber appeal failed on July 23, 2026, the Single Judge noting that the written statement had not been filed even within 120 days of May 5, 2025. The defendants then appealed to the Division Bench.
Three questions for the larger bench
The Bench framed three questions. The first is whether the Supreme Court’s decisions holding Order VIII Rule 1 directory, including Kailash v. Nanhku, apply to Rule 4 of the Delhi High Court Rules, and whether the contrary Division Bench decisions lay down the correct law. The second is whether the Court alone can extend time to file a written statement under Rule 4, or whether the Registrar has any such power. The third is whether Rahul Gupta is contrary to the law settled in State of Orissa and liable to be overruled.
What happens next
The matter is to be placed before the Chief Justice, who will consider whether to constitute a larger bench on the questions posed. The order does not state a next hearing date.
What a larger bench could change
Once the statutory period and the extension have lapsed, defendants in civil suits on the Original Side have so far faced a hard stop, with the Registrar closing the right to file. If a larger bench accepts that Rule 4 is directory, courts would keep the discretion to accept late written statements in suitable cases. Until then, the three earlier Division Bench rulings remain the binding position.
Case Title: Yogesh Taneja (since deceased, through LRs) v. Vijay Taneja (since deceased, through LRs) [FAO(OS) 93/2026, CM APPL. 55377/2026 and CM APPL. 55376/2026]
Bench: Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar, Delhi High Court
Date of Judgment: October 8, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Anshul Sharma and Vishesh Tomar for the appellants; Advocate Ishaan Seth for the respondents