E-filing date controls filing of a written statement; later scrutiny objections do not delay completion of filing.

E-filing of a written statement is complete on the date the document is electronically received in the Registry, and later scrutiny or office objections do not postpone that filing date. Applying the e-filing rules and distinguishing filing from institution under the Code of Civil Procedure, the HC treated the system-generated receipt and e-filing history as proof of submission on 08.03.2023. On that basis, the written statement was held filed on 08.03.2023, and the delay in filing was condoned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the written statement and interim application filed through the e-filing portal were to be treated as filed on the date of electronic receipt in the Registry, notwithstanding pendency of scrutiny and office objections, and whether delay in filing the written statement deserved condonation.

Analysis: The e-filing rules provided that the date of e-filing is the date on which the action is electronically received in the Registry within the prescribed time, and that subsequent objections or scrutiny do not postpone the filing date. The Court distinguished filing from institution under the Code of Civil Procedure, noting that the filing of a written statement is complete when it is first tendered electronically, even if defects are later pointed out and cured. The system-generated email and e-filing history showed electronic submission on 08.03.2023, which was treated as the relevant filing date.

Conclusion: The written statement was held to have been filed on 08.03.2023, and the delay in filing was condoned.

---