In the realm of legal interpretation, one of the fundamental principles guiding the judicial process is the resolution of conflicts between special laws and general laws. It is a well-established doctrine that when a special law and a general law appear to be at odds, the special law must prevail. This principle holds true as a means of ensuring clarity, consistency, and specificity in legal matters. One such instance where this principle becomes pertinent is in the interplay between the Delhi High Court Rules (DHC Rules) and the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in India. This article aims to explore the precedence of the DHC Rules over the CPC in certain circumstances, with a focus on Rule 3 of Chapter VII of the DHC Rules, 2018, and its effect on the filing of written statements in civil litigation.

The Doctrine of Special Law Prevailing Over General Law:
The doctrine that a special law prevails over a general law is firmly rooted in the principles of legal interpretation. This doctrine ensures that when two laws seemingly conflict, the specific provisions of the special law take precedence over the general provisions of the overarching law. The rationale behind this principle is to provide clarity and precision in legal matters, preventing conflicts and ambiguities in the application of different laws.

Delhi High Court Rules Vs. CPC: An Overview:
In the context of India's legal landscape, the Delhi High Court Rules (DHC Rules) serve as specialized procedural guidelines for cases within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. On the other hand, the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is a general law that governs civil proceedings across India.

Rule 3 of Chapter VII of the DHC Rules, 2018, deals with the procedure for filing an affidavit of admission/denial of documents along with the written statement. The rule stipulates that such an affidavit must be filed simultaneously with the written statement, failing which the written statement will not be accepted for recording.

The Conflict: Rule 3 of DHC Rules vs. CPC:
The conflict arises when the provisions of Rule 3 of Chapter VII of the DHC Rules, 2018, come into apparent contradiction with the provisions of Order XI of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act. Order XI of the CPC deals with the discovery and inspection of documents in civil suits. The Commercial Courts Act amended Order XI of the CPC, introducing certain changes to the procedure for disclosure of documents.

Resolution: Special Law Prevails:
In the specific context of Rule 3 of DHC Rules, 2018, and Order XI of the CPC as amended, it is imperative to apply the doctrine of special law prevailing over general law. This means that the provisions of Rule 3 of DHC Rules, which explicitly require the filing of an affidavit of admission/denial of documents along with the written statement, must be given precedence over the amended provisions of Order XI of the CPC.

The Effect on filing of Written Statements without affidavit of admission denial:
As a direct consequence of this prioritization of the DHC Rules, it becomes evident that the affidavit of admission/denial of documents is a mandatory requirement for filing a written statement in cases under the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. Failure to comply with this requirement would result in the written statement not being accepted for recording.

The Concluding Note:
In the realm of legal interpretation and conflict resolution between special laws and general laws, the principle of the special law prevailing holds true. Delhi High Court Rules, being a specialized set of procedural guidelines, must take precedence over the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. This principle finds application in Rule 3 of Chapter VII of the DHC Rules, 2018, which requires the filing of an affidavit of admission/denial of documents along with the written statement.

The Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: ITD Cementation India Limited Vs Indian Corporation Limited
Date of Judgement:06/10/2023
Case No. CS (COMM) 844/2017
Neutral Citation No:N.A.
Name of Hon'ble Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Mini Pushkarna, JJ

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