Delhi High Court Reinforces Procedural Authority: Upholds Strict Timelines For Written Statements

Background

The case of Manhar Sabharwal v. High Court of Delhi involves a challenge to the constitutionality of a specific rule in the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The Petitioner argue that Rule 4, Chapter VII of these rules imposes a strict 120-day deadline for filing written statements in all matters, including non-commercial cases. This is in contrast to the flexibility provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for non-commercial matters.

Issue

The central issue in this case was whether the High Court of Delhi’s decision or actions were legally incorrect, unjust, or in violation of legal principles.

Petitioner’s Submissions

Petitioner submit that the impugned rule is:

1. An anomaly that causes hardships to litigants with meritorious cases but prevented from presenting written statements due to circumstances beyond their control.
2. Contrary to Articles 14, 141, 142, and 144 of the Constitution, exceeding the Court’s competence under List III of the Seventh Schedule and Sections 122-128 of the CPC.
3. Beyond the Court’s power to restrict statutory time limits, as the CPC allows judges to extend time for filing written statements.
4. Subject to government approval and publication requirements under Sections 124-127 of the CPC, which are not met.
5. Substantive, not procedural, as it takes away a judge’s discretion to condone delay.
6. Beyond the scope of Section 129 CPC and the DHC Act, which only permits procedural rules.
7.  Discriminatory and violation of Article 14, as it applies only to litigants in the High Court but not in District Courts.
8. Excessive of the law laid down by the Supreme Court under Articles 142 and 144 of the Constitution.

Respondent’s Submissions

Respondents submit that:

1. The DHC Original Side Rules are traced to Section 7 of the DHC Act, which has not been challenged, making Rule 4 not open to challenge on ultra vires grounds.
2.  Section 129 of the CPC explicitly allows High Court rules to override CPC provisions, making the impugned rule protected even if inconsistent.
3. The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kailash v. Nanhku was specific to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC and does not apply to the impugned rule.
4.  Under Section 129 CPC, High Court rules prevail over other CPC provisions, making Rule 4 not challengeable on grounds of being contrary to the Supreme Court’s judgment.

The Court’s Decision: Findings and Analysis

The Delhi High Court’s decision upheld the constitutionality of Rule 4 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The court found that these rules, framed under Section 129 of the CPC and Section 7 of the DHC Act, have overriding effect over conflicting provisions of the CPC due to the non-obstante clause in Section 129. This clause grants High Courts the authority to establish procedural rules specific to their jurisdiction, even if inconsistent with the CPC. The court rejected arguments that Rule 4 was discriminatory, noting that the distinction in procedural rules between High Courts and Civil Courts is inherent. Additionally, the court found the Petitioners’ reliance on previous judgments such as Kailash v. Nanhku and Raj Kumar Yadav misplaced, as those cases did not address the specific issue of statutory time limits imposed by High Court rules.

Significance

This case reflects the Supreme Court’s role in ensuring that High Court decisions adhere to legal standards and principles. It also underscores the process for challenging judicial decisions within the Indian legal system.