The period of 30 days for filing replication along with an extended period of 15 days is mandatory for the plaintiff, and the inherent power of the court cannot be exercised in a manner contrary to the procedure expressly provided in the rules.

JUDGMENT :

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

I.A. No. 10178/2019 (for delay)

This application has been filed by the appellant / plaintiff seeking condonation of 22 days in re-filing the appeal being OA 81/2019.

For the reasons stated in the application delay of 22 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

Application stands disposed of.

O.A. No. 81/2019

1. Vide this order I shall decide this appeal filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated May 17, 2019 of the learned Joint Registrar in CS (COMM) 1261/2018, whereby the learned Joint Registrar has closed the right of the plaintiff to file replication as well as the affidavit of admission / denial of documents.

2. It must be stated here that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 11,55,58,917 along with 18% interest against the defendant. Upon service of the summons, the defendant has submitted its written statement on January 30, 2019 / February 18, 2019. Thereafter on March 13, 2019, the learned Joint Registrar recording the factum of filing of the written statement granted liberty to the appellant / plaintiff to file replication as well as the affidavit of admission / denial of documents and adjourned the matter for April 9, 2019.

3. It is the case the appellant / plaintiff that the mother of the counsel for the appellant / plaintiff was seriously ill and remained in hospital for more than a month on account of being diagnosed with Swine Flu and as the counsel was busy in the treatment of her mother, the replication as well as the affidavit of admission / denial of documents were not filed before April 9, 2019 when the counsel sought further time to file the replication as well as the affidavit of admission / denial of documents. The learned Joint Registrar by recording the reasons for not filing the replication granted further time to the appellant / plaintiff to file replication and affidavit of admission / denial of documents and adjourned the matter to May 17, 2019 when the impugned order was passed.

4. Mr. Karunesh Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / plaintiff would submit that the replication and the affidavit of admission / denial of documents were drafted by the counsel for the appellant / plaintiff much before May 17, 2019, but he did not get the same attested prior to May 17, 2019. On May 17, 2019, there was election of the Delhi High Court Bar Association and every counsel was busy in the election. Consequently, the replication as well as the affidavit of admission / denial of documents could not be got attested on the same day prior to 11 am and it was under these circumstances, the counsel sought two more days to file replication as well as the affidavit of admission / denial of documents and had also agreed to hand over the replication as well as the affidavit of admission / denial of documents to the counsel for the respondent / defendant but the learned Joint Registrar ignoring the aforesaid fact in utter haste closed the right of the appellant / plaintiff to file replication and affidavit of admission / denial of documents.

5. It is the submission of Mr. Tandon that there is no reason for the learned Joint Registrar not to grant further time of two days to enable the appellant / plaintiff file the replication as well as the affidavit of admission / denial of documents as the time period under the Delhi High Court (Original Side Rules), 2018 is not mandatory to be followed. This according to him is because of Rules 14 and 16 of Chapter I of Delhi High Court (Original Side Rules), 2018, which stipulates as under:

14. Court's power to dispense with compliance with the RulesThe Court may, for sufficient cause shown, excuse parties from compliance with any requirement of these Rules, and may give such directions in matters of practice and procedure, as it may consider just and expedient. [provided where the Court / Judge is of the opinion that Practice Directions are required to be issued, he may make a suitable reference to the Hon'ble Chief