For ordinary (non-commercial) suits on the Delhi High Court's original side, the prevailing view has been stern: Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 allows a written statement to be filed within 30 days, extendable up to 120 days — and not a day more. In Yogesh Taneja (Since Deceased Through LRs) v. Vijay Taneja (Since Deceased Through LRs) (FAO(OS) 93/2026, decided 8 October 2026), a Division Bench has now doubted that orthodoxy. Observing that the Supreme Court treats the parallel timeline in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC as directory for non-commercial suits, the Bench held that the only possible interpretation is that Rule 4 is also directory — and, unable to agree with three earlier Division Bench rulings, referred the question to a Larger Bench.
How the question arose
The underlying suit began life as a commercial suit, but in May 2025 a Single Judge held it was not a commercial dispute and it was renumbered as an ordinary original side suit. The defendants’ written statement was not filed in time; in January 2026 the Joint Registrar closed their right to file it, and in July 2026 the Single Judge dismissed the chamber appeal, holding the pleading had not come even within the outer limit of 120 days. The defendants’ legal representatives appealed to the Division Bench.
The conflict of authority
Delhi Division Benches
Ram Sarup Lugani (2020), Delhi Gymkhana Club (2024) and Manhar Sabharwal (2024): Rule 4 of Chapter VII is mandatory; 120 days is an absolute outer limit even for non-commercial suits.
Supreme Court on the CPC
Kailash v. Nanhku (2005) and Salem Advocate Bar Association (2005): the Order VIII Rule 1 timeline is directory; in exceptional situations courts may take a late written statement on record.
The Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar found the two lines irreconcilable for non-commercial suits and declined to follow the Delhi line, recording that “the only possible interpretation is that Rule 4 of DHC Rules is also directory in nature” — but, bound by judicial discipline, it did not simply overrule coordinate Benches. It referred the questions for an authoritative answer.
The three referred questions
The matter now goes before the Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench.
Nothing in this reference touches commercial suits. For disputes governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Supreme Court’s decision in SCG Contracts keeps the 120-day limit strictly mandatory, and the defence stands forfeited thereafter. The reference concerns only ordinary original side suits — where the value exceeds Rs. 2 crore but the dispute is not “commercial” — and, by extension, the discipline applied by Joint Registrars in those matters.
What turns on the answer
A great deal of everyday litigation. Delays in filing written statements are among the most common procedural casualties on the original side — changes of counsel, voluminous documents, parties abroad, estates under administration (this very case proceeded through legal representatives on both sides). If the Larger Bench holds Rule 4 directory, courts will regain a narrow discretion to take belated defences on record in exceptional cases, with costs. If it reaffirms the mandatory view, the 120-day guillotine stays — and the second and third questions about the Registrar’s powers will decide who wields it.
File within 30 days as the working rule. Whatever the Larger Bench says, extension beyond 30 days is discretionary and must be sought with reasons; nothing in the reference rewards drift.
Mind the forum of the extension application. With the Registrar’s powers under reference, prudent practice is to have extension requests placed before the Court where there is any doubt.
Preserve the point. Defendants recently shut out at the 120-day line in non-commercial suits should keep the issue alive in chamber appeals or FAO(OS) proceedings pending the Larger Bench’s verdict.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the current rule on written statement timelines in Delhi High Court suits?
In commercial suits, the Commercial Courts Act regime applies and the 120-day outer limit is mandatory per the Supreme Court's SCG Contracts ruling — the defence is forfeited beyond it. For non-commercial original side suits, Division Bench decisions in Ram Sarup Lugani, Delhi Gymkhana Club and Manhar Sabharwal have treated Rule 4's 120-day limit as equally absolute. It is that second proposition which is now referred to a Larger Bench.
Why does the Division Bench think the limit may be directory?
Because the Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku and Salem Advocate Bar Association held that the 90-day outer limit in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory — procedural rules are the handmaid of justice, and in exceptional cases courts retain the power to take a belated written statement on record. The Bench reasoned that a High Court rule of procedure for non-commercial suits cannot logically be harsher than the CPC provision it mirrors.
What else has been referred to the Larger Bench?
Two connected questions: whether the power to extend time for filing a written statement belongs to the Court alone, with the Joint Registrar's role being merely ministerial; and whether the ruling in Rahul Gupta treating a Registrar's order as reviewable by a Single Judge conflicts with Supreme Court authority and should be overruled.
What should litigants in pending suits do meanwhile?
The reference does not by itself change the law — until the Larger Bench rules, the existing Division Bench decisions hold the field. Defendants should continue to treat 120 days as the practical outer limit and file within it; a defendant already shut out may seek to keep the issue alive in appeal, since the final answer will come from the Larger Bench.