In civil litigation, the replication plays a significant role in responding to the defendant's written statement. In the Delhi High Court, the time limit for filing a replication is governed by Rule 5 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 ("the Original Side Rules"). This article examines the provisions of Rule 5, recent judicial decisions, and their implications on the maximum time limit for filing a replication.

Rule 5 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018:
Rule 5 of the Original Side Rules provides the framework for filing a replication in the Delhi High Court. It is essential to note that this rule applies specifically to suits filed on the original side of the court. The rule establishes the initial time limit for filing a replication at 30 days from the date of service of the written statement. However, Rule 5 contains a critical limitation: "but not thereafter."

The phrase "but not thereafter" is significant, as it unequivocally restricts any extension of time beyond 15 days beyond the initial 30-day period. This means that, even in exceptional and unavoidable circumstances, the maximum allowable time for filing a replication in the Delhi High Court is 45 days from the date of service of the written statement. This strict limitation is intended to promote the expeditious resolution of cases and prevent unnecessary delays in the litigation process.

Judicial Precedent: Ram Sarup Lugani vs. Nirmal Lugani 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1353:
The decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Sarup Lugani Vs. Nirmal Lugani, reported as 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1353, is of particular significance in understanding the maximum time limit for filing a replication in the Delhi High Court. In this case, the Division Bench held that the provisions of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, prevail over the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) regarding the time limit for filing a replication.

The Division Bench's ruling affirmed the supremacy of the Original Side Rules in this regard, establishing that the maximum time for filing a replication cannot exceed 45 days from the date of service of the written statement. In light of this decision, any application seeking condonation of delay in filing a replication that exceeds the 45-day limit would be dismissed.

Implications and Analysis:
The Delhi High Court's strict adherence to the 45-day time limit for filing a replication is rooted in the principles of efficiency and expedition.The decision in Ram Sarup Lugani vs. Nirmal Lugani reinforces the importance of adhering to the Original Side Rules and emphasizes the need for litigants and legal practitioners to be diligent in complying with procedural timelines. It also highlights the limited scope for seeking condonation of delay in filing a replication beyond the prescribed 45-day limit.

The concluding Note:
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court's Rule 5, Chapter VII of the Original Side Rules, 2018, establishes a strict maximum time limit of 45 days for filing a replication in suits filed on the original side of the court. The decision of Hon'ble Division Bench, High Court of Delhi in Ram Sarup Lugani vs. Nirmal Lugani reaffirms the supremacy of these rules over the CPC and underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timelines. Legal practitioners and litigants should be mindful of this limitation and exercise due diligence to ensure timely compliance with the prescribed time limits for filing a replication in the Delhi High Court.

Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: Atlantech Online Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Google India Pvt. Ltd.
Date of Judgement:29/08/2023
Case No. CS(COMM) 647/2021
Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:6373
Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, H.J.

Disclaimer:
Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539