Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge To Rule Requiring Filing Of Written Statement Within 120 Days, Says Original Side Rules Override CPC Provisions
The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutionality of Rule 4, Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, which mandates that a written statement has to be filed within 120 days, including in non-commercial matters.The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the High Court is empowered to frame its own rules and procedure in...
The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutionality of Rule 4, Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, which mandates that a written statement has to be filed within 120 days, including in non-commercial matters.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the High Court is empowered to frame its own rules and procedure in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction on account of Section 129 CPC and Section 7 of Delhi High Court Act, 1966.
The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Rule 4 of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules ('DHC Original Side Rules') on the ground that the said Rule is discriminatory.
The petitioners claimed that Rule 4 creates an unequal treatment among various litigants in Delhi on the basis of pecuniary jurisdiction, as non-commercial matters in District Courts are governed by Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. Further, Rule 4 takes away the discretion of a judge to condone delay in filing written statements in non-commercial matters.
The High Court referred to Section 129 of the CPC and Section 7 of the Delhi High Court Act ('DHC Act') and stated that Rule 4 of DHC Original Side Rules has been framed under these provisions.
Power of High Court to make its own Rules: Section 129 of CPC
The Court noted that the DHC Original Side Rules have been famed by the Delhi High Court in view of the authority granted to it by Section 129 of CPC. Section 129 CPC provides that a High Court can make rules and regulate its own procedure in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction.
The Court noted that as Section 129 CPC begins with a non-obstante clause, it has an overriding effect on other provisions of the CPC.
“The effect of non-obstante clause is to give the enacting part of the Section, an overriding effect over the provisions of the Act, in case of any conflict.”
The Court observed that even the DHC Original Side Rules will have an overriding effect over CPC provisions as these Rules have been enacted in view of the authority conferred on the High Court by Section 129 of CPC.
“…it is evident that Section 129 CPC, which is couched in a non-obstante clause, will have an overriding effect over other provisions of the CPC, in case of any conflict. Thus, the DHC Original Side Rules, which have been enacted in terms of the authority conferred by Section 129 CPC, will essentially and necessarily have an overriding effect over other provisions of the CPC. In case of any conflict, the DHC Original Side Rules shall prevail.” the Court stated.
Therefore, the High Court can frame Rules that may be contrary to the provisions of CPC in view of Section 129 CPC.
Section 7 of the DHC Act
The Court then referred to Section 7 of the Delhi High Court Act, which further empowers the Delhi High Court to make rules and orders with respect to practice and procedure for the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
It observed that the words 'practice and procedure' have a wide connotation and will include the power to regulate and specify the method by which the court will conduct its proceedings.
In view of powers conferred to the Delhi High Court to make its own rules under Section 129 CPC and Section 7 DHC Act, the Court stated that “The DHC Original Side Rules, being special law, will prevail over the CPC, and have an overriding effect over the general provisions of the CPC.”
The Court noted that the petitioners did not challenge Section 129 CPC and Section 7 of the DHC Act, which confer plenary powers on the High Court to make rules and procedures.
It observed, “Thus, when plenary powers of this Court to frame the Original Side Rules, are recognized and accepted, the petitioners have not been able to establish any case that the exercise of such powers by this Court, and the Rules framed thereunder, are unconstitutional in any manner.”
Distinction between procedures of High Court and Civil Court
Under Rule 4 of DHC Original Side Rules, the written statement has to be filed within 30 days but may be extended by the Court for a period not exceeding 90 days.
The Court observed that the phrase 'but not thereafter' used in Rule 4 lays down that the filing of the written statement cannot be extended beyond 90 days. It stated that this phrase “…provides for an action, which is mandatory in nature.”
Regarding the petitioners' claim that Rule 4 is discriminatory because it takes away the discretion of High Court judges to accept written statements beyond 120 days, unlike District Court judges, the Court opined that this contention was 'totally misplaced.'
It stated that there is a distinction between the procedures of the High Court and Civil Courts. Referring to Section 129 CPC, it noted that this provision provides for such distinction by recognising special Rules for the High Court.
The Court remarked that “When the CPC itself envisages distinction in the practice and procedure between High Court and Civil Court, the Rules framed thereunder, cannot be challenged on the anvil of discrimination.”
It thus held that the High Court is within its authority and jurisdiction to frame its own rules of practice and procedure with respect to its original civil procedure.
The Court thus dismissed the petition.
Case title: Manhar Sabharwal vs. High Court Of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 935