The judgment established that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, specifying time limits for filing the written statement, can be extended in exceptional circumstances, especially in technical matters requiring extensive examination and data collection.

JUDGMENT :

G.P. Mittal, J.

I.A. 16018/2014 (delay in filing the reply) & I.A. 17037/2014 (delay in filing the written statement)

1. These applications are for condonation of delay in filing the written statement and reply to the injunction application beyond the specified period of 90 days and the time as granted by the Court.

2. The Defendant applicant seeks extension of time in filing reply to the injunction application and written statement to the plaint. Admittedly, there is a delay of 45 days in filing the written statement beyond the period of 90 days. On behalf of the Defendant, it is submitted that the matter relates to a patent which covers the Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) compound named 'Vildagliptin'. The sum and substance of the ground taken by the Defendant for extension of time is that the Defendant had applied for certified copies of various patents which were relevant to the present dispute between the parties from the respective patent offices and the same were supplied to the Defendant only recently. It is further the case of the Defendant that the matter being highly technical had to be examined by the experts. Opinions from them were obtained and the requisite material on the subject was also downloaded from internet to file a proper defence. The Defendant had to collect large volumes of data and thus, it delayed the filing of the written statement and the reply to the injunction application.

3. The extension of time is strenuously opposed on behalf of the Plaintiffs. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that no cogent reason has been given by the Defendant for condonation of delay. The Plaintiffs have incorporated several dates in their reply to show that the Defendant was repeatedly granted time to file the written statement and reply to the injunction application. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the Defendant's averments that technical team of the Defendant was examining the voluminous data is false and without any basis as the said data has not been placed on record.

4. I have heard Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the Defendant.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs referring to the judgment in Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Others, (2005) 4 SCC 480, has urged that although it is well settled that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) specifying the time limit of 30 days and maximum 90 days in filing the written statement is directory, but at the same time, the Court can grant extension of time beyond the same only in appropriate cases where there are exceptional circumstances and there is sufficient cause for which adequate explanation has been given by the Defendant for not filing the pleadings within the stipulated period of time. The learned Senior Counsel also relies upon the judgment in R.N. Jadi and Brothers and Others Vs. Subhashchandra, (2007) 6 SCC 420, and Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Faij Mohammad and Others, (2009) 3 SCC 513.

6. The learned Senior Counsel particularly has referred and taken me through paras 33 to 45 of the judgment in Kailash (supra) wherein it was held as under:

"33. As stated earlier, Order VIII, Rule 1 is a provision contained in the CPC and hence belongs to the domain of procedural law. Another feature noticeable in the language of Order VIII, Rule 1 is that although it appoints a time within which the written statement has to be presented and also restricts the power of the Court by employing language couched in a negative way that the extension of time appointed for filing the written statement was not to be later than 90 days from the date of service of summons yet it does not in itself provide for penal consequences to follow if the time schedule, as laid down, is not observed. From these two features certain consequences follow.

34. Justice G.P. Singh notes in his celebrated work Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edn., 2004) while dealing with mandato