Background of the Case:

• The case at hand, Manhar Sabharwal Vs High Court of Delhi, decided on August 23, 2024, involves a significant constitutional challenge raised by the petitioner, Manhar Sabharwal, against the High Court of Delhi.
• The core of the dispute revolves around the constitutionality of Rule 4, Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
• This rule imposes a strict 120-day deadline for filing a written statement in non-commercial matters.
• The petitioner contested the rule, arguing that it conflicted with provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which offers more flexibility in granting extensions to file written statements.
• The petitioner, represented by a team of advocates, challenged the legality of the rule, naming the High Court of Delhi and other respondents.
• The core issue is whether the Delhi High Court’s Original Side Rules, which govern the procedures in civil cases directly instituted before the Delhi High Court, can impose stricter procedural limits than those prescribed by the CPC.

Issue of the Case:

• The primary issue before the court was the constitutionality and legality of Rule 4, Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
• This rule mandates that in non-commercial matters, parties must file their written statements within 120 days of being served the summons, without allowing for judicial discretion in condoning delays beyond this period.
• The petitioner contended that this rule is discriminatory and violates the Constitution of India, specifically Article 14, which guarantees the right to equality before the law.
• According to the petitioner, the rule unfairly strips the court of its inherent powers under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC, which gives judges discretion to condone delays in filing written statements, subject to certain reasonable conditions.

Contentions of the Parties:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that Rule 4, Chapter VII is not merely a procedural rule but a substantive provision, as it directly affects the rights of litigants by imposing a rigid and inflexible timeline.
• The petitioner claimed that the rule unjustly restricts the ability of the court to exercise discretion in matters of delay.
• It was contended that the rule violated several constitutional provisions, including Article 14 and Article 141, which mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts.
• The petitioner further argued that the rule contravened Articles 142 and 144, which deal with the enforcement of Supreme Court orders and the duty of all courts to act in aid of the Supreme Court.
• The petitioner also invoked the Concurrent List under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, arguing that since civil procedure falls under this list, the High Court did not have the legislative competence to override the CPC, particularly Sections 122 to 128, which govern the procedural aspects of civil cases.
• In essence, the petitioner submitted that the High Court’s rule is ultra vires, or beyond its legal authority, as it curtails the judicial discretion available under the CPC.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents relied on Section 129 of the CPC, which empowers the High Court to make its own rules of practice and procedure for civil cases on its Original Side.
• The respondents argued that Rule 4, Chapter VII is procedural and within the competence of the Delhi High Court to frame under its rule-making powers.
• The rule’s purpose is to ensure the speedy disposal of civil cases, preventing undue delays due to late filings of written statements.
• They contended that the rule applies uniformly to all non-commercial matters and does not unjustly discriminate against litigants.
• They further argued that Section 129 of the CPC gives the High Court the authority to frame rules that prevail over the general provisions of the CPC when it comes to procedural matters on the Original Side.

Issues Dealt with by the Court:

• Constitutionality of Rule 4, Chapter VII: Whether the rule violated constitutional principles, particularly Article 14.
• Legislative Competence of the High Court: Whether the Delhi High Court had the legislative authority under Section 129 of the CPC to frame rules that could override provisions of the CPC.
• Nature of the Rule – Procedural vs. Substantive: Whether the rule is procedural or substantive in nature, affecting the rights of the parties.
• Potential Discrimination Against Litigants: Whether the stricter procedural timeline discriminated against litigants compared to those in Subordinate Courts.

Reasoning and Final Decision:

• Legislative Competence: The court held that Section 129 of the CPC empowers the High Court to frame its own rules for civil cases on its Original Side.
• Procedural Nature of the Rule: The court ruled that the impugned rule is procedural, dealing with the conduct of proceedings, and does not affect the substantive rights of the litigants.
• Non-Discriminatory: The court found that the rule applies uniformly to all litigants before the High Court and does not unjustly discriminate.
• Judicial Discretion: The court held that the rule limits judicial discretion, but this was within the High Court’s power to ensure timely progression of cases.

Final Decision:

• The court dismissed the petition and upheld the constitutionality of Rule 4, Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
• The rule was found to be procedural, non-discriminatory, and within the competence of the High Court.

Case Citation:

Manhar Sabharwal Vs High Court of Delhi: 08.08.2024: Madhu Food Products Vs Surya Processed Food: 2024:DHC6118: Delhi High Court: Chief Justice and Mini Pushkarna, H.J.

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

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