The
Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed petitions challenging Rule 4, Chapter VII
of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, which imposes a strict
120-day deadline for filing written statements, even in non-commercial matters
[Manhar Sahbarwal v. High Court of Delhi & Ors].
A
Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna ruled
that the Delhi High Court Original Side Rules constitute special legislation,
which takes precedence over the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
"The
petitioners' claim that Rule 4, Chapter VII of the DHC Original Side Rules is
discriminatory is entirely unfounded.
The
distinction between High Court and Civil Court procedures is explicitly
recognized in Section 129 of the CPC, which allows for special Rules for the
High Court.
Since the CPC itself envisions different
practices and procedures for the High Court and Civil Courts, the Rules
established under this provision cannot be challenged on the grounds of
discrimination," the Court stated.
Two
petitions had been filed challenging the constitutionality of Rule 4, Chapter
VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
The
petitioners argued that this Rule unfairly discriminates against litigants in
Delhi based solely on pecuniary jurisdiction.
They
contended that non-commercial matters in district courts are governed by Order
VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, which gives courts discretion to condone delays in
filing written statements beyond 120 days in non-commercial matters.
The
petitioners further argued that this Rule results in unequal treatment, as
delays beyond 120 days in filing written statements in non-commercial matters
are not condoned in cases before the High Court due to Rule 4.
The
Court rejected these arguments, noting that the petitioners did not challenge
Section 129 of the CPC, which grants High Court Rules overriding authority over
the CPC.
Additionally,
the Court pointed out that no challenge was made to Section 7 of the Delhi High
Court Act, which empowers the High Court to create Rules and Orders regarding
the practice and procedure for exercising its original civil jurisdiction.
"Given
that the plenary powers of this Court to frame the Original Side Rules are
recognized and accepted, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the
exercise of these powers or the Rules themselves are unconstitutional.
For
these reasons, the petitions are deemed to lack merit and are dismissed, along
with any pending applications," the Bench concluded.
Senior Advocate PS Bindra, along with Advocates Arjun Malik, Vrinda Awasthi, Aarohi Malik, and Kharanshu Rana, represented petitioner Manhar Sabharwal.
Advocates Manish Kaushik, Mishal Johari, Ajit Singh Joher, Anubhav Gupta, Meet Shokeen, and Aryan Pandey appeared for petitioner Chirag Sharma.
Advocates
Aditi Mohan, Puru Lekhi, and Divyam Rathi represented the High Court of Delhi.
Advocates
Rishabh Kapur, Rachita Garg, Agam Rajput, Preeti Chauhan, Sourabh Gupta, Puneet
Yadav, and Vasu Dev appeared for various respondents.
