Delhi High Court
Vk Sood Pil Jv vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation And … on 8 April, 2026
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 08th APRIL, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
O.A. 43/2023
IN
+ CS(OS) 330/2022
VK SOOD PIL JV .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Karunesh Tandon, Mr. Sarthak
Mittal, Mr. Prabin Mohan, Advs.
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS
.....Defendants
Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing Counsel
of MCD with Ms Ankita Bhadouriya
& Mr Umesh Kumar, Advs
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
I.A. 7780/2023
1. This is an Application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963
read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC“) on
behalf of the Defendants seeking condonation of delay in filing the Chamber
Appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the Application, the delay in filing the
Chamber Appeal is condoned.
3. The Application is disposed of.
O.A. 43/2023
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 1 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17
4. The challenge in this Appeal is to the Order dated 17.03.2023 by
which the learned Joint Registrar refused to accept the Written Statement of
the Defendant on record on the ground that it has been filed beyond the
period of 120 days.
5. Material on record indicates that on receiving summons, Defendants
appeared for the first time on 31.05.2022 and time was granted to file the
Written Statement on the said date. The Written Statement was filed for the
first time on 25.09.2022. However, the said Written Statement was kept in
defect as it was not accompanied by the Affidavit of admission/denial of
documents.
6. The Written Statement along with the Affidavit of admission/denial of
documents ultimately came on record on 14.12.2022, which is beyond the
maximum period provided under the Delhi High Court (Original Side)
Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the „Delhi High Court Rules‟).
7. Vide Order dated 17.03.2023, the learned Joint Registrar refused to
accept the Written Statement filed by the Defendants, which was not
accompanied by the Affidavit of admission/denial of documents on the date
when it was filed and the Affidavit was filed only on 14.12.2022, which is
beyond the prescribed period of 120 days under the Delhi High Court Rules.
8. Rule 2, 3 and 4 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court Rules which
are relevant are reproduced as under:-
“2. Procedure when defendant appears.–
If the defendant appears personally or through an
Advocate before or on the day fixed for his appearance in
the writ of summons:–
(i) where the summons is for appearance and for filing
written statement, the written statement shall not be takenSignature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 2 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17
on record, unless filed within 30 days of the date of such
service or within the time provided by these Rules, the
Code or the Commercial Courts Act, as applicable. An
advance copy of the written statement, together with
legible copies of all documents in possession and power
of defendant, shall be served on plaintiff, and the written
statement together with said documents shall not be
accepted by the Registry, unless it contains an
endorsement of service signed by such party or his
Advocate.
(ii) the Registrar shall mark the documents produced by
parties for purpose of identification, and after comparing
the copies with their respective originals, if they are
found correct, certify them to be so and return the
original(s) to the concerned party.
3. Affidavit of admission/ denial of documents
alongwith written statement.-
Alongwith the written statement, defendant shall also
file an affidavit of admission/ denial of documents filed
by the plaintiff, without which the written statement
shall not be taken on record. Alongwith the written
statement, the defendant shall be entitled to file
applications for interrogatories for examination of the
plaintiff together with proposed interrogatories;
application for discovery; and application for inspection
of such documents.
4. Extension of time for filing written statement.–
If the Court is satisfied that the defendant was prevented
by sufficient cause for exceptional and unavoidable
reasons in filing the written statement within 30 days, it
may extend the time for filing the same by a further
period not exceeding 90 days, but not thereafter. For
such extension of time, the party in delay shall be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 3 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17
burdened with costs as deemed appropriate. The written
statement shall not be taken on record unless such costs
have been paid/ deposited. In case the defendant fails to
file the affidavit of admission/ denial of documents filed
by the plaintiff, the documents filed by the plaintiff shall
be deemed to be admitted. In case, no written statement
is filed within the extended time also, the Registrar may
pass orders for closing the right to file the written
statement.” (Emphasis Supplied)
9. Rule 2 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court Rules mandates that
the Written Statement should be filed within a period of 30 days. Rule 3
mandates that along with the Written Statement, the Defendant shall also file
an Affidavit of admission/denial of documents without which the Written
Statement shall not be taken on record. Rule 4 provides that if the Court is
satisfied that the Defendant was prevented by sufficient cause for
exceptional and unavoidable reasons in filing the Written Statement within
30 days, it may extend the time for filing the Written Statement by a further
period not exceeding 90 days, but not thereafter. Rule 4 also provides that in
case the Defendant fails to provide an Affidavit of admission/denial of
documents of the Plaintiff, the documents filed by the Plaintiff shall be
deemed to be admitted.
10. Admittedly in the present case, the Written Statement has not been
filed within 30 days and was filed only on 25.09.2022, which is 3 days
before the 120 days period came to an end, i.e., 28.09.2022. An Application
for condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement has been filed by
the Defendants. Paragraph 2 to 4 of the said Application reads as under:-
“2. That the Applicants/ Defendants/ MCD being a
Government Public Sector Unit, authorized its counsel
through due process to appear in the aforementionedSignature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 4 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17
matter. That the Applicants through the instant
Application seeks condonation of Delay in filing the
Written Statement in compliance with order dated
31.05.2022. That the slight delay in filing of the Written
Statement, inter alia, was occasioned as the instant
matter has grave ramifications and hence office records
were procured and the contents thereof deliberated with
the officers of the applicant/ MCD. Further, after due
deliberations, the Written Statement was carefully
drafted to incorporate the relevant averments of the
applicants. The Written Statement once prepared by the
Counsel of the Applicants, was shared with the
Applicants/ MCD for due vetting by the Competent
Defendant/ MCD/ Legal Defendant/ MCD of the
Applicant/ MCD and then sent to the Officer concerned
for signing. That as the records in the instant case is
voluminous and as the Applicant not being a private
party has a due process of approving Affidavits/ Replies,
thus the entire process took some time and hence
occasioned the inadvertent delay in filing the Written
Statement.
3. That the reason for delay in filing the Written
Statement is a sufficient cause for not filing the Written
Statement within the stipulated period of time granted by
the Hon’ble Court. It is prayed that the Hon’ble court
may take a sympathetic approach and may not presume
that the delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of
mala fide or that the Applicant is guilty of culpable
negligence since no litigant takes recourse to delay in
complying with the direction of the Hon’ble Court, unless
the reason is compelling; as in the instant case.
4. That the filing the Written Statement in compliance
with the directions of the Hon’ble Court vide Order dated
31.05.2022 is bonafide and for the reasons above
mentioned the Applicant is filing the present Application
seeking the condonation of delay of 85 days in filing itsSignature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 5 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17
Written Statement.”
11. The Defendants have also filed an Application for condonation of
delay in re-filing the Written Statement. Paragraph 3 to 5 of the said
Application reads as under:-
“3. That the Written Statement was filed by the Applicant
on 25.09.2022, whereafter the objection was raised by
the registry that the Affidavit of Admission &· Denial of
documents of Plaintiff was not filed alongwith the
Written Statement/ Reply.
4. That as the documents relied upon by the Plaintiff
were voluminous and a total of 472 documents had been
relied. The pedantic perusal of the same and drafting of
admission & denial of documents took considerable time.
That after due deliberations, the Affidavit of Admission &
Denial was carefully drafted in conformity with the
averments of the applicants. The Affidavit once prepared
by the Counsel of the Applicants, was shared with the
Applicants/ MCD for due vetting by the Competent
Defendant/ MCD/ Legal Defendant/ MCD of the
Applicant/ MCD and then sent to the Officer concerned
for signing. That it was during this period that the MCD
elections were also due. That as the records in the instant
case is voluminous and as the due process of approvals
of Affidavits/ Replies are to be followed by Applicants/
MCD, thus the entire process took some time and hence
occasioned the inadvertent delay in filing the Affidavit of
Admission & Denial.
5. The defects were thus finally removed on 14.12.2022
and the Written Statement of the Applicants/ Defendants
was taken on record alongwith the Affidavit of Admission
& Denial. It is worth to mention here that no objection of
either condonation of delay in filing Written Statement or
condonation of delay in re-filing was raised by the
Registry before taking the Written Statement andSignature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 6 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17
Affidavit of Admission & Denial on record.”
12. The short question which, therefore, arises for consideration is as to
whether a Written Statement which has been filed within 120 days, which is
the maximum period stipulated under the Delhi High Court Rules, but is not
supported by an Affidavit of admission/denial of documents, which have
been filed subsequently and after the period of 120 days, can be taken on
record or not.
13. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that a Written Statement
without an Affidavit of admission/denial of documents is not a Written
Statement at all in view of Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court Rules which
makes the filing of an Affidavit of admission/denial of documents
mandatory along with Written Statement. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff
submits that permitting a Written Statement to come on record without of an
Affidavit of admission/denial of documents or allowing the of an Affidavit
of admission/denial of documents to be filed separately after 120 days
period will render the provisions of Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court Rules
completely otiose.
14. He further submits that in any event Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court
Rules provides for the time limit of curing the defective pleadings. He states
that assuming without admitting that the Written Statement sans of an
Affidavit of admission/denial of documents is only a defective pleading
even then, Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court Rules provides that the defects
must be cured within 30 days and since the defects in the present case were
not cured within the 30 days time period, the Written Statement cannot be
taken on record as they were filed without of an Affidavit of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 7 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17
admission/denial of documents within the time prescribed under the Delhi
High Court Rules.
15. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff places reliance on the Judgment of a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Unilin Beheer B.V. v. Balaji Action
Buildwell, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 12566, wherein the co-ordinate Bench of
this Court has taken a view that under Rules 3 & 4 of Chapter VII of the
Delhi High Court Rules permitting a Written Statement without of an
Affidavit of admission/denial of documents would render the word “shall”
as otiose.
16. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Defendants contends
that the learned Joint Registrar has failed to appreciate that the Written
Statement was filed on 25.09.2022, i.e within the prescribed period of 120
days. He states that the Affidavit of admission/denial of documents was filed
on 14.12.2022. He contends that the rejoinder/replication has been filed to
the Written Statement and, therefore, the Plaintiff has estopped from raising
the ground that the Written Statement cannot be taken on record.
17. Learned Counsel for the Defendant places reliance on the Judgment
passed by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court in COSCO International
Pvt. Ltd. v Jagat Singh Dugar, 2022 SCC Online Del 1113; Neeraj Ahuja v
AIPIL Zorro Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC Online Del 3479; and Shefali Kohli v
Neena Chatrath, 2024 SCC Online Del 2752, to contend that Written
Statement filed within 120 days cannot be considered as non-est if not
accompanied by of an Affidavit of admission/denial of documents.
18. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on
record.
19. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Unilin Beheer B.V (supra) has
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 8 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17
taken a view that a Written Statement filed without an Affidavit of
admission/denial of documents cannot be taken on record at all. After
quoting various provisions, the learned Single Judge in the said Judgment
has held as under:
“22. The core question for consideration is, whether
the only consequence of non-filing of the affidavit of
admission/denial of documents along with the written
statement is of the documents filed by the plaintiff
being deemed to be admitted by the defendant OR of
the written statement being not taken on record and the
defendant being in the position of a defendant who has
not filed the written statement.
23. On first blush it appears that there is indeed
inconsistency/contradiction, in Rule 3 on the one hand,
providing that written statement without affidavit of
admission/denial shall not be taken on record and Rule
4 on the other hand, providing that the effect of non-
filing of affidavit of admission/denial shall be of the
documents being deemed to be admitted.
24. I have wondered, whether the two Rules read
together have the effect of providing that on non-filing
of affidavit of admission/denial with written statement,
though the written statement has to be read but the
documents of plaintiff deemed to be admitted. However
to hold so, would tantamount to rendering otiose the
words “without which the written statement shall not
be taken on record” in Rule 3 supra and negate the bar
in Rule 3 to taking the written statement on record if
unaccompanied with an affidavit of admission/denial
of documents.
25. It is the settled rule of statutory interpretation that
interpretation which renders otiose any part of a
statute, should be avoided.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 9 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17
26. On the contrary the effect of holding that in such a
situation, the written statement shall be deemed to have
been not filed and the documents filed by the plaintiff
deemed to be admitted, would allow full play to both
Rules, without making any part thereof otiose. On
further consideration, no inconsistency/contradiction is
found in the two Rules. This interpretation is also in
consonance with the legislative intent.
27. Such interpretation is also found to be in
consonance with the spirit behind overhauling of the
Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967 and
enactment of the 2018 Rules. With the experience of
over fifty years of working of the 1967 Rules, attempt
was made in the 2018 Rules to do away with the
bottlenecks in the proceedings in the suits on the
Original Side of this Court. One of such bottlenecks
was the stage of admission/denial of documents, at
which the suits remained pending, in large number of
cases, for years and thereafter also not serving any
purpose of expediting trial, with vague denials being
made, putting the opposite party to proof of documents
at the cost of consequent delays. Order 12 Rule 2A of
the CPC, as existed since amendment thereof of 1976,
though provided that a document, which a party is
called upon to admit, if not denied specifically or by
necessary implication or stated to be not admitted in
the pleading of that party or in reply to notice to admit,
shall be deemed to be admitted but also provided that
where a party unreasonably neglected or refuses to
admit a document after service of notice to admit-
documents, the Court may direct him to pay costs to
the other party by way of compensation. The same in
working, led to, as aforesaid, a practice of generally
denying everything in pleadings, implicitly also
documents and taking advantage of resultant delays in
proof of documents. This resulted in suits, most ofSignature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 10 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17
evidence wherein was documentary, also being not
decided expeditiously owing to delays in proof of
documents. To eliminate such malady, in the new Rules
provisions aforesaid were incorporated, making
affidavit of admission/denial of documents mandatory
and providing stringent consequences of non-filing of
affidavit of admission/denial of documents to prevent a
party from abusing the process of Courts, to its own
advantage and to the prejudice of opposite parties. The
Scheme in entirety, as set out hereinabove, shows that
the same consequences as for defendant, also follow
for plaintiff for non-filing of affidavit of
admission/denial of defendant?s documents.
28. To, inspite of aforesaid changes in Rules hold, that
in such a situation the written statement shall be read
though the documents filed by the plaintiff deemed to
be admitted, has the potential of resulting in
anomalous situation. The Senior Counsel for the
plaintiff has canvassed that though the plaintiff did not
file affidavit of admission/denial of documents along
with the written statement to the Counter Claim but has
in the written statement to the Counter Claim, dealt
with the documents. Holding, that the written statement
containing a denial of documents will be read, would
come in the way of giving full effect to the deemed
admission of the documents provided for in Rule 4, as
happens under Order 12 Rule 2A supra of CPC and
undo the effect of the new Rules.
29. Under Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC, upon non-filing
of written statement, the Court has discretion,
depending on facts, to either pronounce judgment
forthwith or direct the plaintiff to prove his claim.
Deemed admission by the defendant of the documents
of the plaintiff, under Rule 4 supra, will also result in
the Court, where defendant has not filed affidavit of
admission/denial with written statement, on the basisSignature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 11 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17
of admission of documents pass a decree forthwith
rather than relegating the party to proof of his claim
based on documents.
30. I thus hold, that in the event of the written
statement being filed without affidavit of
admission/denial of documents, not only shall the
written statement be not taken on record but the
documents filed by the plaintiff shall also be deemed to
be admitted and on the basis of which admission the
Court shall be entitled to proceed under Order 8 Rule
10 of the CPC.”
20. On the other hand, in the three Judgments relied on by the learned
Counsel for the Defendants, the co-ordinate Benches have taken a
completely contrary view. In COSCO International Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the
learned Single Judge, after observing the findings of the co-ordinate Bench
in Unilin Beheer B.V (supra), has observed as under:
“14. What is noteworthy is that having expressed the
opinion in para 31 of Unilin Beheer B.V. (supra) as
extracted above, even in that case, the Co-ordinate
Bench allowed the written statement (to the counter
claim) to be taken on record subject to payment of
costs; since, the written statement and the affidavit of
admission/denial of documents had been filed within
the maximum time period specified for the purpose
under the law. Accordingly, para 31 as aforesaid must
be taken to apply only when the written statement is
filed beyond the 120 days period and the defect of not
having filed an affidavit of admission/denial of
documents is also not cured within the maximum 30
days period prescribed by law from the date that the
filing objection is brought to the knowledge of the
party.
15. Upon a conspectus of the timelines as set-out above
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 12 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17
and in light of the provisions of the CPC as amended
by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division &
Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts
(Amendment) Act, 2018read in conjunction with the
Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules 2018, as also
the judicial precedents referred to by the parties, this
court is of the view that written statement having been
filed within the statutory period; and the defect of non-
filing of the affidavit of admission/denial also having
been cured well within the permissible time period,
nothing further stands in the way of the written
statement being taken on record.
16. For clarity, it is reiterated that what Order V Rule
1(1) and Order VIII Rule 1 CPC provide is the outer
time-limit for filing of the written statement of defence.
The filling by the defendant of an affidavit of
admission/denial of the plaintiff’s documents, is a
separate requirement under Chapter VII Rule 3 and 4
of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018;
and the consequence for not filing such affidavit is that
the written statement shall not be taken on record and
that the plaintiff’s documents shall be deemed to be
admitted by the defendant. However, the filing of a
written statement within the prescribed time but
without an accompanying affidavit of admission/denial
of documents, does not amount to non-est filing, since
it cannot be said that nothing was filed at all. It would,
however, amount to a defect, that is required to be
cured after it is brought to the attention of the party by
the Registry. Chapter VII Rule 3 only bars taking on
record a written statement that is filed without an
accompanying affidavit of admission/denial of
documents. Filing of the written statement and it being
taken on record are two separate and distinct matters.”
21. Similarly, in Neeraj Ahuja (supra), the learned Single Judge, after
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 13 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17
placing reliance on COSCO International Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has observed as
under:
“6. Ms. Arora points-out that in the present case, no
objections or defects had been pointed-out by the
Registry in relation to the filing of the written
statement; and the defendant came to know that the
written statement was not on record only at the hearing
before the learned Joint Registrar on 09.05.2019;
whereupon, the defect pointed-out, which related only
to non-filing of the affidavit of admission/denial of
documents, was cured and the said affidavit was filed
within 19 days thereafter. Accordingly, it is submitted
that the 30-day aggregate period available for curing
of filing defects under Chapter IV Rule 3 of the Delhi
High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 was also
adhered to.
****
8. Accordingly, the essential submission on behalf of
the appellant/defendant, is that the written statement in
the present case had indeed been filed within the time
of 120 days prescribed under Order V Rule 1(1) and
Order VIII Rule 1 CPC; and the only defect pointed-
out subsequently was of not having filed the affidavit of
admission/denial of documents alongwith the written
statement; which defect was also cured within 19 days
of it being pointed-out, well in compliance of the 30
days aggregate time period available for curing such
defects under Chapter IV Rule 3 of the Delhi High
Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. It is therefore
argued, that the impugned order deserves to be set-
aside and the written statement ought to be taken on
record.”
22. Similarly, in Shefali Kohli (supra) the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
after placing reliance on COSCO International Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that
a Written Statement without of an Affidavit of admission/denial of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 14 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17
documents can be taken on record.
23. This Court is of the view that permitting Written Statement without an
Affidavit of admission/denial of documents would render the word “shall”
in Rule 3 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court Rules as otiose. It is well
settled that meaning has to be given to every word in legislation. The
legislation in Rule 3 has used the word “shall” making it mandatory. There
is no reason to read the word “shall” as “may” as it goes against the spirit of
Rules 2, 3 & 4 of the Delhi High Court Rules, the object of which is to
ensure finally completion of pleadings. It is settled law that unless there are
compelling reasons to read the word “shall” as “may” literal interpretation is
the golden rule for interpreting the statute.
24. It is a settled rule of construction that to ascertain the legislative
intent, all the constituent parts of a statute are to be taken together and each
word, phrase or sentence is to be considered in the light of the general
purpose and object of the Act itself. The Apex Court in Ramana Dayaram
Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 has
held that the words used in statutes cannot be treated to be surplusage or
superfluous or redundant and must be given some meaning and weightage. It
was observed by the Apex Court as under:
“7…..It is a well-settled rule of interpretation
applicable alike to documents as to statutes that, save
for compelling necessity, the Court should not be
prompt to ascribe superfluity to the language of a
document “and should be rather at the outset inclined
to suppose every word intended to have some effect or
be of some use”. To reject words as insensible should
be the last resort of judicial interpretation, for it is an
elementary rule based on common sense that no author
of a formal document intended to be acted upon by theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 15 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17
others should be presumed to use words without a
meaning. The court must, as far as possible, avoid a
construction which would render the words used by the
author of the document meaningless and futile or
reduce to silence any part of the document and make it
altogether inapplicable….”
This view has consistently held the field and was recently reiterated in
Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), (2016) 8
SCC 622 and JSW Infrastructure Ltd. v. Kakinada Seaports Ltd., (2017) 4
SCC 170.
25. It is also well settled that where the statutes meaning is clear and
explicit, words cannot be interpolated. But, if the provision is clear and
explicit, it cannot be reduced to a nullity by reading into it a meaning which
it does not carry. Further, a legislature does not waste words without any
intention, and every word that is used by the legislature must be given its
due import and significance.
26. It is a well-settled principle of law that user of verbs “may” and
“shall” in a statute is not a sure index for determining whether such statute is
mandatory or directory in character. The Apex Court in Muskan Enterprises
v. State of Punjab, (2024) 20 SCC 85, has further elucidated the import and
distinction between the terms “shall” and “may” as under:
“24. Law is well-settled that user of the verbs “may”
and “shall” in a statute is not a sure index for
determining whether such statute is mandatory or
directory in character. The legislative intent has to be
gathered looking into other provisions of the
enactment, which can throw light to guide one towards
a proper determination. Although the legislature is
often found to use “may”, “shall” or “must”
interchangeably, ordinarily “may”, having an element
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 16 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17
of discretion, is directory whereas “shall” and “must”
are used in the sense of a mandatory provision. Also,
while the general impression is that “may” and
“shall” are intended to have their natural meaning, it
is the duty of the court to gather the real intention of
the legislature by carefully analysing the entire
statute, the section and the phrase/expression under
consideration. A provision appearing to be directory
in form could be mandatory in substance. The
substance, rather than the form, being relevant,
ultimately it is a matter of construction of the statute
in question that is decisive.
25. It is also a well-accepted rule that interpretation
must depend on the text and the context — the text
representing the texture and the context giving it
colour — and, that interpretation would be best, which
makes the textual interpretation match the contextual.
While wearing the glasses of the statute-maker, the
enactment has to be looked at as a whole and it needs
to be discovered what each section, each clause, each
phrase and each word means and whether it is
designed to fit into the scheme of the entire enactment.
While no part of a statute and no word of a statute can
be construed in isolation, statutes have to be construed
so that every word has a place and everything is in its
place. We draw inspiration for the above
understanding of the manner of interpreting a statute
from the decision of this Court in RBI v. Peerless
General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. [RBI v.
Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd.,
(1987) 1 SCC 424 : (1987) 61 Comp Cas 663 : AIR
1987 SC 1023]”
(emphasis supplied)
27. No universal principle of law could be laid in that behalf as to
whether a particular provision or enactment shall be considered mandatorySignature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 17 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17
or directory. It is the duty of the court to try to get at the real intention of the
legislature by carefully analysing the whole scope of the statute or section or
a phrase under consideration. If the directions of the statute are mandatory,
then strict compliance with the statutory terms is essential to the validity of
administrative action. But if the language of the statute is directory only,
then variation from its direction does not invalidate the administrative
action. Conversely, if the statutory direction is discretionary only, it may not
provide an adequate standard for legislative action and the delegation. The
Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya, 1960 SCC OnLine SC
5, considering the aforesaid position, has observed as under:
“29. The relevant rules of interpretation may be briefly
stated thus: When a statute uses the word “shall”,
prima facie, it is mandatory, but the Court may
ascertain the real intention of the legislature by
carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute.
For ascertaining the real intention of the Legislature
the Court may consider, inter alia, the nature and the
design of the statute, and the consequences which
would follow from construing it the one way or the
other, the impact of other provisions whereby the
necessity of complying with the provisions in question
is avoided, the circumstance, namely, that the statute
provides for a contingency of the non-compliance
with the provisions, the fact that the non-compliance
with the provisions is or is not visited by some penalty,
the serious or trivial consequences that flow
therefrom, and, above all, whether the object of the
legislation will be defeated or furthered.”
(emphasis supplied)
28. It scarcely needs reiteration that principles of judicial propriety and
decorum mandate that where a Single Judge, while hearing a matter, is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 18 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17
inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of the High Court,
whether of a Division Bench or of a Single Judge, needed to be
reconsidered, the appropriate course is to refer the matter to a Division
Bench or, in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice
to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question.
29. Furthermore, to preserve judicial decorum, the Apex Court in Dr.
Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish (2001) 2 SCC 247 has observed as under:
“33. As the learned Single Judge was not in agreement
with the view expressed in Devilal case [ Election
Petition No. 9 of 1980] it would have been proper, to
maintain judicial discipline, to refer the matter to a
larger Bench rather than to take a different view. We
note it with regret and distress that the said course was
not followed. It is well-settled that if a Bench of
coordinate jurisdiction disagrees with another Bench
of coordinate jurisdiction whether on the basis of
“different arguments” or otherwise, on a question of
law, it is appropriate that the matter be referred to a
larger Bench for resolution of the issue rather than to
leave two conflicting judgments to operate, creating
confusion. It is not proper to sacrifice certainty of law.
Judicial decorum, no less than legal propriety forms
the basis of judicial procedure and it must be respected
at all costs.”
30. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court in State of Punjab
v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., (2004) 11 SCC 26, has observed as
under:
“339. Judicial discipline envisages that a coordinate
Bench follow the decision of an earlier coordinate
Bench. If a coordinate Bench does not agree with the
principles of law enunciated by another Bench, the
matter may be referred only to a larger Bench. (SeeSignature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 19 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17
Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik
[(2002) 1 SCC 1] , SCC at paras 6 and 7; followed in
Union of India v. Hansoli Devi [(2002) 7 SCC 273] ,
SCC at para 2.) But no decision can be arrived at
contrary to or inconsistent with the law laid down by
the coordinate Bench. Kalyani Stores [AIR 1966 SC
1686 : (1966) 1 SCR 865] and K.K. Narula [AIR 1967
SC 1368 : (1967) 3 SCR 50] both have been rendered
by the Constitution Benches. The said decisions,
therefore, cannot be thrown out for any purpose
whatsoever; more so when both of them if applied
collectively lead to a contrary decision proposed by the
majority.”
31. In view of the divergent views expressed by co-ordinate Benches of
this Court on the issue in question, and having regard to the settled principle
of judicial discipline that conflicting interpretations by Benches of equal
strength ought to be authoritatively resolved by a Larger Bench, this Court
considers it appropriate to refer the present issue for consideration by a
Larger Bench.
32. The question that arises for determination is whether the filing of a
Written Statement within the statutory period prescribed under the Delhi
High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, but without being accompanied by
an affidavit of admission/denial of documents, renders such filing non-est in
law or whether the absence of such affidavit constitutes a curable defect,
permitting the Written Statement to be taken on record upon subsequent
compliance of filing an affidavit of admission/denial of documents.
33. In the event the Larger Bench holds that such Written Statement can
be taken on record notwithstanding the delayed filing of the affidavit of
admission/denial, the matter shall stand remitted to the learned Joint
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 20 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17
Registrar for consideration of the sufficiency of the reasons furnished by the
Defendants for the delay in filing the said affidavit. Conversely, if the
Larger Bench holds that a Written Statement unaccompanied by the affidavit
of admission/denial within the prescribed period cannot be taken on record,
the impugned order of the learned Joint Registrar shall stand affirmed.
34. In view of conflicting orders of the co-ordinate Benches of this Court
on the issue raised in the present case, an authoritative pronouncement is
necessary so that there is uniformity in deciding such cases in this Court.
This issue is arising frequently and, therefore, it is expedient that the same is
put to rest on an urgent basis. Accordingly, let the matter be placed before
the Hon‟ble the Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench to decide
the present issue
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
APRIL 08, 2026
Hsk/JR
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM CS(OS) 330/2022 Page 21 of 21
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
10:43:17