SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 1082

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Deepayan Mohanty - Appellant
Versus
Cargill India Pvt Ltd & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Suit (OS) No. 1157 of 2014
Decided On : 29-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
Rohit Puri, Advocate, Shadan Farasat, Advocate, Bharat Gupta, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exclusion of the limitation period and valid reasons for condoning delay can influence the court's decision to allow the filing of written statements.

Headnote:

Condonation of Delay - Written Statements - CPC - Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1, S.151 - SMW No.3/2020

Fact of the Case:

The defendants filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing their written statements in a summary suit seeking recovery of a specific amount. The defendants argued that the limitation period for filing the written statements should commence from the date when the Supreme Court passed an order staying the deposit of the required amount. They also cited the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their ability to file the written statements in a timely manner.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the defendants were entitled to the exclusion of the limitation period specified in SMW No.3/2020, even in respect of the condonable period for filing the written statement. The court also noted that valid reasons were provided by the defendants for condoning the delay in filing the written statements. The court allowed the written statements to be taken on record, subject to the payment of costs by each defendant to the plaintiff.

Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the written statements should be condoned, considering the impact of the Supreme Court's order and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendants were entitled to the exclusion of the limitation period specified in SMW No.3/2020, and valid reasons were provided for condoning the delay in filing the written statements. The court also emphasized that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants if the written statements were allowed to be taken on record.

Final Decision: The court allowed the written statements to be taken on record, subject to the payment of costs by each defendant to the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT

amit Bansal, J. - I.a. No.3108/2021 (of the defendant no.1 u/O-V R-1, O-VIII R-1 & S.151 CPC), I.a. No.3112/2021 (of the defendant no.3 u/O-V R-1, O-VIII R-1 & S.151 CPC ) and I.a. No.3116/2021 (of the defendant no.2 u/O-V R-1, O-VIII R-1 & S.151 CPC)

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the defendants seeking condonation of delay in filing of their written statements.

2. The present summary suit has been filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking recovery of Rs.3,25,56,496/- along with future and pendente lite interest.

3. Vide judgment dated 3rd august, 2018, the Single Judge of this Court dismissed the application of the defendants for grant of leave to defend and the suit was decreed. The said judgment was challenged by the defendants before a Division Bench of this Court in RFa(OS) 72/2018, whereby vide judgment dated 9th December, 2019, the defendants were granted conditional leave to defend. The condition was for the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs.3,25,56,496/- within eight weeks from the said date. Before the expiry of the said period of eight weeks, the defendants filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, being SLP(C) No.2553/2020, challenging the judgment dated 9th December, 2019 to the extent it required the deposit of the aforesaid amount by the defendants. The Supreme Court vide order dated 31st January, 2020, while issuing notice in the SLP, stayed the deposit of the aforesaid amount.

4. Based on the above, it is contended on behalf of the counsel for the defendants that the limitation period for filing the written statements would commence from 31st January, 2020, when the Supreme Court passed the aforesaid order. Therefore, the thirty days' period for filing the written statements would have expired on 1st March, 2020 and before the condonable period of further sixty days expired, the Supreme Court order dated 23rd March, 2020 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020 titled In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (SMW No.3/2020) came into effect, whereby it was observed that the period with effect from 15th March, 2020 has to be excluded for the purposes of counting limitation. It is submitted that the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court was further clarified in the order dated 8th March, 2021 to include within the ambit of the excluded period the outer limit within which a Tribunal or Court could condone delay.

5. It is submitted that the written statements could only have been filed by the defendants upon the depositing of the amount as ordered by the Division Bench and the written statements could not have been accepted by the Registry before the deposit of the aforesaid amount.

6. Counsel for the plaintiff vehemently opposes the present application on the ground that the Division Bench order did not give the defendants eight weeks' time to file the written statements. Time of eight weeks was only given to deposit the aforesaid amount. Therefore, there was no reason why the written statements could not be filed by the defendants before the aforesaid period. He further states that no valid reasons have been given by the defendants in their present applications for seeking condonation of delay in filing of the written statements. He further submits that if the period for filing the written statements has to be counted from 9th December, 2019, the condonable period stood expired before 15th March, 2020 i.e., prior to the date from which exclusion was ordered by the Supreme Court.

7. I have heard the counsels for the parties.

8. In view of the dismissal of the leave to defend applications by the Single Judge, no written statements could be filed on behalf of the defendants. Conditional leave was granted to the defendants by the Division Bench vide order dated 9th December, 2019, subject to the defendants depositing a sum of Rs.3,25,56,49/- within eight weeks. Once again, the right of the defendants to file written statements

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top