The Delhi High Court has reiterated that timelines under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) apply equally to State instrumentalities and private litigants. [ICAR National Research Centre of Plant Biotechnology v. Azad Singh Dagar]
Justice Girish Kathpalia upheld trial court orders rejecting the defence of ICAR National Research Center of Plant Biotechnology for failing to file its written statement within the prescribed period under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.
“The petitioner being an instrumentality of State, owing to impersonal machinery, certain lethargy and carelessness, if not deliberate default to help the other party, cannot be ruled out. But it also cannot be ignored that there is no separate procedural law for government authorities. The provision under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC operates equally for the Subjects as well as the State.”
The litigation arose from a recovery suit of ₹4.86 lakh filed by Azad Singh Dagar, proprietor of M/s Servitor Intelligence. ICAR was served with summons on July 25, 2018, but failed to file a written statement by January 19, 2019, leading the trial court to strike off its defence.
ICAR subsequently filed a review application and also sought condonation of delay under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, claiming the delay was caused by routine government procedures. Both applications were dismissed by the trial court on May 30, 2025, with costs imposed.
Justice Kathpalia noted that ICAR’s right to file its written statement expired on August 24, 2018 and even the extended 90-day period under Order VIII Rule 1 lapsed on October 24, 2018. The organisation only attempted to place its written statement on record in May 2019.
The Court found the explanation of bureaucratic delays to be wholly inadequate. Justice Kathpalia stressed that no date-wise account of the movement of the file had been given, nor was any exceptional circumstance shown that could justify condoning the delay.
Finding no infirmity in the trial court’s orders, the High Court dismissed the petition as well as all pending applications.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate SS Lingwal.
[Read Judgment]