ICAR National Research Center Of Plant Biotechnology v. Azad Singh Dagar Prop M/S Servitor Intelligence, 2025
This judgment reinforces discipline in civil litigation and discourages habitual delay tactics often employed by state agencies.
Judgement Details
Court
Delhi High Court
Date of Decision
12 September 2025
Judges
Justice Girish Kathpalia
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
A suit for recovery of money was filed against the petitioner.
-
The defendant (ICAR) was served summons in July 2018.
-
Despite multiple opportunities, no Written Statement was filed until January 2019, leading the trial court to strike off the defence.
-
The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court.
Issues
-
Whether the striking off of the defence for delay in filing the Written Statement was justified?
-
Whether government bodies are entitled to procedural leniency due to bureaucratic delays?
-
Can substantive rights override codified procedural requirements?
Judgement
-
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, refusing to issue notice due to colossal delay and lack of any exceptional justification.
-
It held that procedural law must be followed, and even substantive rights must be claimed through due procedure.
-
The Court found no valid explanation for the delay, and noted that government machinery’s routine excuses do not justify non-compliance.
Held
-
The Striking off the defence by the trial court was upheld.
-
The petition was dismissed without issuing notice.
-
No separate procedural law exists for government entities; they are equally bound by timelines.
Analysis
-
The Court clarified that procedure is not dispensable in the name of substantive justice.
-
It warned against diluting codified civil procedure, emphasizing that government departments are not above procedural compliance.
-
This judgment reinforces discipline in civil litigation and discourages habitual delay tactics often employed by state agencies.
-
It draws a clear line: substantive rights are not absolute they are conditional on following procedural law.