Point of Law: Civil Suit - Collaboration Agreement - Absence of any cogent explanation forthcoming for inaction of petitioner/defendant, till 20th August 2020, Trial Court rightly dismissed the application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

[Via Video Conferencing]

1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/defendant before the learned Trial Court challenging the order dated 6th April, 2021 passed by the Additional District Judge-01, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No.827/2019. The petitioner/defendant has sought setting aside of the impugned order whereby the delay in filing his written statement along with reply to the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”, for short) has not been condoned.

2. The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction, rendition of accounts and damages. The respondent/plaintiff is the sole owner of the Property No.24, Surya Niketan, Delhi–110092, admeasuring 331 square yards. He claims to have been residing in the said property since 1983. Thereafter, desirous of re-constructing the property into a Multi-storey building, he entered into an agreement with the petitioner/defendant, who presented himself as being engaged in the business of promotion, development and construction of properties. A Collaboration Agreement was executed between the parties on 4th December 2017. In accordance with the said agreement, the cost and expenses of raising the construction were to be borne by the petitioner/defendant only. According to the Agreement, the petitioner/defendant and respondent/plaintiff were also to get separate portions of the said property after construction. The respondent/plaintiff had alleged that the petitioner/defendant failed to carry out the construction even after a lapse of 22 months and also failed to make payment of additional sum as per agreed schedule in the Collaboration Agreement.

3. The respondent/plaintiff also claimed that the petitioner/defendant had undertaken to pay the rent of the premises in which the respondent/plaintiff had to shift on account of the demolition of the existing structure, but failed to honor this commitment. In short, these disputes between the parties led to the filing of the instant suit by the respondent/plaintiff seeking injunctions against the petitioner/defendant from interfering with the peaceful and lawful possession of the respondent/plaintiff, in respect of the property No.24, Surya Niketan, Delhi–110092, with further directions to him to remove all his machinery, labour and other building equipments from the premises and restraining him from creating any third party interest in the said property. A Decree of Declaration to declare the Collaboration Agreement dated 4th December, 2017 as legally terminated on breach by the petitioner/ defendant and that the petitioner/defendant had no right, title or interest in the said property was also sought. Monetary claims of Rs.24,50,000/- towards rent for the period from 15th December, 2017 to November, 2019, Rs.4,00,000/- as penalty for non-completion of the construction of the Multi-storey building on the suit property by 6th July, 2019, Rs.25,00,000/- towards damages for hardship, harassment, mental agony caused to the respondent/plaintiff by the petitioner/defendant, along with interest, were also made.

4. Summons of the suit and the application were served upon the petitioner/defendant on 11th January, 2020. There is no dispute with regard to this fact. However, the written statement was not filed until 20th August, 2020. An application was filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement and reply to application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. This was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff. The learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 6th April, 2021 dismissed the said application on the ground that there was “no plausible explanation and coherent reason” explaining the delay in filing the written statement and reply to application under Order XXXIX Ru