Point of Law : Civil Law – Condonation of Delay - Extension of time for filing written statement - Court must be satisfied that the defendant was prevented from a sufficient cause for exceptional and unavoidable reasons - there are no grounds for condoning the delay beyond a period of 30 days from that date.

JUDGMENT :

IA No. 3129/2020 & IA No. 2945/2020

1. The has filed the above captioned application (IA No. 2945/2020) seeking condonation of delay of eighty-six days in filing of the written statement by the applicant/defendant.

2. The plaintiff has also filed an application (IA No. 3129/2020) for removing the defendant’s written statement and documents filed along with it from the record, on the ground that the same has been filed beyond the period as stipulated under Chapter-VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (hereafter ‘DHC Rules’)

3. Thus, the principal issue involved in these applications is common – whether the delay in filing of the written statement ought to be condoned.

4. At this stage, before proceeding further, it would be relevant to set out the context for addressing the controversy.

5. The plaintiff has instituted the above captioned suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from publishing/sending/circulating/pasting/propagating any kind of abusive, threatening, intimidating or defamatory content in any manner. The plaintiff also seeks a decree restraining the defendant from entering into his work place, court room and chambers and all other places where he is required to be present for discharge of his official duties. In addition, the plaintiff also seeks damages against the defendant.

6. The said suit was listed before the Court on 30.08.2019. On that date, this Court directed issuance of summons as well as notice of the applications filed by the plaintiff seeking interim relief under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter ‘CPC’) [IA 11932/2020]. The summons were directed to be served by all modes, including dasti as well as electronic modes, returnable on 16.09.2019 The Court also found that the plaintiff had made out a case for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and accordingly, passed ad-interim orders in the following terms:-

“6. The defendant, till the next date of hearing, is restrained (i) from publishing/sending/circulating/posting/propagating any kind of abusive or threatening or intimidating or defamatory content in any manner whatsoever, either by print or electronically, to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff’s relatives, friends, staff, colleagues and their spouses as well as other residents of Saket Court Residential Complex; and, (ii) from visiting the workplace of the plaintiff and more specifically from entering the court room and chamber and all other places where the plaintiff has to be present in discharge of his official duties.

7. It is however made clear that the aforesaid order will not amount to a restraint in any manner whatsoever on the defendant taking/defending legal proceedings and/or taking any steps in aid thereof.

8. It is further ordered that the plaintiff also, till the next date of hearing, shall not publish/send/circulate/post/propagate any kind of abusive or threatening or intimidating or defamatory content in any manner whatsoever, either by print or electronically to the defendant or to the defendant’s relatives and friends and shall not visit any place where the defendant works or visits in the normal course. However again, this would not amount to a restraint in any manner on the plaintiff from taking/defending legal proceedings and/or taking any steps in aid thereof.

9. Provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) be complied forthwith.

10. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.”

7. The copy of the suit and the application preferred under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC was served on the defendant on 05.09.2019. The counsel for the plaintiff also served the plaint, the said application and the order dated 30.08.2019 by electronic mode (e-mail) to the defendant on 12.09.2019. Although, the plaintiff contends that the summons were served on the defendant on 05.09.2019 by speed post and on 12.09.2019 by electronic modes, however this was disputed by the defendant.

8.