Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 68
High Court of Delhi
HIMA KOHLI, J.
M/s. Visionaire India - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
CS(OS). No. 2822 of 2012
Decided on: 15-01-2015
For the Plaintiff:Anil K. Aggarwal, with A.B. Singh, Advocates.
For the Defendant:C.M. Oberoi, with Surekha Raman, Anuj Sarma, Debarshi Bhuyan, Advocates.
Exceptional circumstances are required to extend the time for filing a written statement, and the court may consider the conduct of both parties in the suit proceedings.
Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Filing of Written Statement - Order VIII Rule 1 CPC - 30, 151 CPC - [Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, Section 151 CPC] - The court examined the delay in filing the written statement and the applications for seeking condonation of delay. The defendant offered just and sufficient reasons for the delay, and the court found the plaintiff's conduct lacking in diligence. The court referred to the legal provisions under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and Section 151 CPC and emphasized the need for exceptional circumstances to extend the time for filing a written statement.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant filed a Chamber Appeal against the order dismissing its application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The defendant's delay in filing the written statement and the subsequent applications for condonation of delay were examined by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant offered just and sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the written statement. It also noted the lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff. The court allowed the chamber appeal and set aside the order of the Joint Registrar, condoning the delay in filing the written statement and the applications for condonation of delay, subject to the payment of costs by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delay in filing the written statement, the applications for condonation of delay, and the conduct of both the defendant and the plaintiff in the suit proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for exceptional circumstances to extend the time for filing a written statement, as per the legal provisions under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. It also considered the lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff in the suit proceedings.
Final Decision: The chamber appeal was allowed, and the delay in filing the written statement and the applications for condonation of delay was condoned, subject to the payment of costs by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Hima Kohli, J.
O.A. No. 303/2014 (Chamber Appeal by the defendant against the order dated 29.11.2014)
1. The present Chamber Appeal has been filed by the defendant/appellant against an order dated 29.11.2014 passed by the Joint Registrar, dismissing its application for seeking condonation of delay of 59 days in filing the written statement (I.A. 15019/2013) and the application for seeking condonation of delay of 169 days in re-filing I.A. 15019/2013 (I.A. 15020/2013).
2. Before referring to the arguments advanced by the counsels for the parties, it is considered necessary to refer to the relevant dates for the purposes of examining the extent of delay on the part of the defendant/appellant in filing the written statement and the delay in re-filing the application for condonation of delay and the adequacy of the explanation offered by the defendant.
3. As per the memo of parties, the plaintiff has furnished two addresses of the defendant; the first address is that of its office at New Delhi and the second one is of Bangalore, Karnataka. Summons in the suit were issued on 18.09.2012, returnable on 27.02.2013. The admitted position is that the Delhi office of the defendant had received the summons on 19.11.2012 and the prescribed timeline of 30 days for filing the written statement, if reckoned from 19.11.2012, would have expired on 18.12.2012. However, the written statement came to be filed on 18.02.2013. This was followed by an application filed by the defendant/appellant under Section 151 CPC, praying inter alia for condonation of delay of 59 days in filing the written statement. However, the said application, registered as I.A. 15019/2013, was filed by the defendant after two days, on 20.02.2013. The records reveal that the said application was returned by the Registry due to some defects and it was re-filed by the defendant’s counsel on 25.02.2013.
4. On 27.02.2013, when the case was posted before the learned Joint Registrar, the counsel had entered appearance on behalf of the defendant. On the said date, the Joint Registrar had noted in the order that the written statement of the defendant had been filed beyond the prescribed timeline and it could not be taken on record. He had also recorded the submission of the counsel for the defendant that he had filed an application for seeking condonation of delay, which would be listed in due course. On the said date, learned counsel for the plaintiff had expressed his inability to conduct the admission and denial of documents due to lack of instructions. As a result, the suit was adjourned to 05.09.2013, for completion of pleadings and for admission and denial of documents. Incidentally, I.A. 15019/2013 was not listed thereafter and later on, it transpired that it had remained under objections due to some more defects pointed out by the Registry.
5. A perusal of the aforesaid application reveals that on 27.2.2013, the Registry had raised further objections in respect of I.A. 15019/2013, one of them being that the number of days’ delay had not been specified in the prayer clause. It is the stand of the counsel for the defendant that as an urgent application did not accompany the aforesaid application, it was assumed that it would be listed in due course and the aforesaid objection raised by the Registry at a later stage, came to his notice only on 05.09.2013, the next date fixed before the Joint Registrar when it was noticed that the said application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement was not listed.
6. On 05.09.2013, the Joint Registrar had observed that in ordinary circumstances, the failure on the part of the defendant to pursue its application for condonation of delay would have called for an order closing its right to file the written statement but the plaintiff was found to be equally lacking in diligence for the reason that it had not filed the original documents till the said date and the counsel, who had appeared for the plaintiff was not even
