MS VXL REALTORS PVT LTD vs LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD AND ANOTHER on 30 September 2026

1. 1. The respondent no.1 filed O.A. bearing T.A. No. 1026/2022 titled as **LIC Housing Finance & another v. Ajay Sharma & others** which is stated to be pending before DRT-I, Delhi.

2. 2. The appellant being the defendant no.2 filed application bearing I.A. No. 1463/2025 for seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the written statement. It was stated that the copy of the O.A was supplied to the appellant being defendant no.2 on 08.04.2025 but the written statement was filed after expiry of 45 days. It is also pleaded that the Counsel for the appellant was aged about 62 years and was suffering from Tuberculosis and due to this reason there was delay of 60 days in filing the written statement.

3. 3. It is also reflecting that the respondent no.1 has not raised any objection in condoning the delay in filing the written statement. The DRT-I vide order dated 15.07.2026 after referring the Section 19 (5) (i) of the RDB Act, 1993 dismissed the application and the written statement on behalf of the appellant being defendant no.2 was not taken on record. The appellant being aggrieved filed the present appeal.

4. 4. Sh. Suraj Prakash, Counsel for the appellant argued that the delay was caused due to his illness as he was suffering from Tuberculosis and the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. He also referred the no objection given by the respondent no.1 FI if the delay in filing the written statement was allowed to be condoned.

5. Apparently, there is a delay in filing the written statement to the OA No.291/2026 which was filed beyond 45 days as provided under Section 19(5)(i) of the RDB Act. Section 19(5)(i) provides that the defendant has to present the written statement of his defence within a period of 30 days from the date of service of summons along with original documents or true copies thereof. The proviso to the said section further provides that if the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, it can be extended in exceptional and special circumstances to be recorded in writing for a period not exceeding 15 days. Section 19(5)(i) of the Act reads as under:- **Section 19.**

**(5) (i) the defendant shall within a period of thirty days from the date of service of summons, present a written statement of his defence including claim for set-off under sub-section (6) or a counter-claim under sub-section (8), if any, and such written statement shall be accompanied with original documents or true copies thereof with the leave of the Tribunal, relied on by the defendant in his defence:**

**Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, the Presiding Officer may, in exceptional cases and in special circumstances to be recorded in writing extend the said period by such further period not exceeding fifteen days to file the written statement of his defence;**

6. It is reflecting that the defendant has to file written statement within maximum period of 45 days. The issue whether there can be further extension beyond 45 days to file written statement was subject matter of consideration of superior courts. The High Court of Delhi in **Anita Garg and others V State Bank of India**, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4311 in para 32 observed that Section 19(5)(i) of the Act does not provide for forfeiture of right to file written statement if it is not filed within the stipulated time or the extended time but the written statement filed beyond the stipulated time or extended time cannot be brought on record. The relevant para 32 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- **32. Though, Section 19(5)(i) does not, in terms, provide for the forfeiture of the right to file the written statement. If it is not filed within the stipulated time, or the extended time that could and may be granted, in**

our view, the consequence would be the same, as the written statement filed beyond the stipulated time, or extended time which could legally be granted for that purpose, cannot be brought on record. The intention of the Parliament can be gathered not only from the Statement of Objects and Reasons set out hereinabove, but also from the outer limit of time, for which extension may, in a deserving case by following the guideline laid down in the Section, be granted. The proceedings before the DRT are also proceedings arising out of commercial dealings and the disputes are commercial disputes. It would not stand to reason, that while the Parliament sought to enforce strict timelines for expeditious disposals of commercial disputes by enacting the Commercial Courts Act, it did not do so in respect of disputes of the same kind, decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunals. The only reason for not incorporating the forfeiture clause in Section 19 is, that the existing provision contained in Section 19 leads to the same conclusion.

5. The Supreme Court in **New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd.**, (2020) 5 SCC 757, considered the issue whether the stipulated time or extended time for filing the written statement under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is similar to Section 19(5) (i) of the Act can be extended or not and observed that the time limit specified for filing the response to the complaint is mandatory and not directory. The relevant para 33 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- **33. Once consequences are provided for not filing the response to the complaint within the time specified, and it is further provided that proceedings complying with the procedure laid down under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act shall not be called in question in any court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with, the intention of the legislature is absolutely clear that the provision of sub-section (2) (a) of Section 13 of the Act in specifying the time-limit for filing the response to the complaint is mandatory, and not directory.**

6. The legal proposition as laid down by the Supreme Court was further re-affirmed and reiterated in **Daddy's Builders Private Limited & another V Manisha Bhargawa & another**, (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 669 and **Dr. Vijay Dixit & others V Pagadal Krishna Mohan & others**, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2279.

7. This Tribunal in Misc. Appeal bearing no.133/2024 titled as **Nikhil Poddar V. Punjab national Bank** which was decided on 01.07.2026 after referring case law as stated hereinabove also held that there is no provision in the RDB Act which permits DRT to condone the delay beyond 45 days in filing the written statement. The order dated 01.07.2026 was challenged before the Delhi High Court in WP(C) 13671/2026 titled as **Nikhil Poddar through his duly constituted attorney Mr. Devender Kumar Sharma V. Punjab National Bank through its Authorised Representative** and the Delhi High Court vide the judgment dated 23.09.2026 also observed that the delay beyond the maximum period of 45 days as prescribed under Section 19(5)(i) of the Act cannot be condoned by any Court.

8. It is apparent from various pronouncements of the Supreme Court that Section 13 although in the context of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is similar to the provisions contained in Section 19(5)(i) of the Act, the period of 45 days cannot be extended for filing the written statement by the defendant. The Counsel for the appellant could not point out any specific legal provision where the filing of Written Statement can be extended beyond 45 days. There is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by DRT which warrants any interference from this Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

9. The copy of this order be given Dasti to the Counsel for the appellant.

----- (Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain) Chairperson

-NS