Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Sundeep Bhupinder Singh & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Oxon Technology Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
CM(M)-IPD 19 of 2022
Decided On : 27-09-2022
Delay Condonation - Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 10, Order VIII Rule 1, Order XXXIX Rule 4, Order XXXIX Rule 2 A, Order VI Rule 15A, Commercial Courts Act 2015 - The court allowed the application filed by the respondents/defendants in the suit, while dismissing the application of the petitioners/plaintiffs in the suit; and has condoned the delay of four days by the respondents/defendants in the suit in the filing of the written statement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order dismissing their application under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, while allowing the application under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC by the respondents. The respondents filed their written statement with a delay of four days, and the court granted an extension of time for filing the Statement of Truth and the Affidavit of Admission and Denial of documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents filed the required documents within the extended time granted by the court, and the filing of the application by the petitioners under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC was not warranted.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in filing the written statement by the respondents and the subsequent applications filed by both parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay of four days in filing the written statement was condoned by the learned District Judge, and the time for filing the required documents was extended by the court, which remained unchallenged and attained finality.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and there was no order as to cost.
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. - CM 105/2022 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions
CM(M)-IPD 19/2022
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-02), South Distt., Saket, in CS(COMM) 113/2022, titled Sundeep Bhupinder Singh and Anr. v. Oxon Technology Pvt. Ltd., dismissing the application filed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the 'CPC') by the petitioners/plaintiffs in the suit, while allowing the application under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC filed by the respondents/defendants in the suit, condoning the four days' delay in filing of the written statement, and taking the same on record.
3. The admitted facts are that the respondents/defendants in the suit were served with the summons in the suit on 31.03.2022. The respondents filed their written statement on 04.05.2022, with a delay of four days, however, without the Statement of Truth, Affidavit of Admission and Denial of the documents of the petitioners/plaintiffs in the Suit, and an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the Written Statement.
4. On 04.05.2022, the learned District Judge passed the following order:
'Ld. Counsel for the defendant has filed vakalatnama alongwith written statement, reply to the application U/s 12A of Commercial Courts Act, reply to the application U/o XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC, list of documents with documents and certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Copies have been supplied to the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff today. Ld. Counsel for the defendant seeks time for filing statement of admission/denial of documents and proper verification U/o VI Rule 15A CPC/statement of truth as amended by Commercial Courts Act.
Heard. Let the statement of admission/denial of documents as well as proper verification U/o VI Rule 15A CPC/statement of truth as amended by Commercial Courts Act be filed by the defendants within two weeks with copy to Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff who may file replication alongwith statement of admission/denial of documents qua the documents filed by the defendant within two weeks thereof with advance copy to Ld. Counsel for the defendants. Interim order to continue till next date of hearing. In order to explore the possibility of settlement, ARs of both the parties are directed to join physical mediation on 20.05.2022 at 2.00 pm. In case of any difficulty, parties may contact Mr. Girdhar Gopal (Mob. No. 9871813718), official Incharge, Mediation Center, Saket Court, New Delhi. Intimation in this regard be sent by reader of this court to Ld. Judge In-charge, Mediation Center, Saket Court, New Delhi. Parties as well as counsels shall make genuine efforts for amicable settlement. In case matter does not get settled, both the parties shall file brief submissions in not more than two pages alongwith convenience file at least three days before the next date of hearing. List on 25.07.2022 for settlement, if any/report of mediator, alternatively for completion of pleadings, admission/denial of documents and hearing on the application.'
5. The respondents/defendants in the suit thereafter filed their statement of truth and affidavit of admission and denial of the documents on 20.05.2022, that is, within the period as prescribed by the learned District Judge in its order dated 04.05.2022, as also within the period of 120 days as prescribed in the CPC, as applicable to the commercial disputes.
6. The respondents/defendants in the suit thereafter filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC on 06.06.2022, on which notice was issued by the learned District Judge on 09.06.2022. Till this date, the petitioners/plaintiffs in the suit had not taken any objection to the grant of the extension of time to the respondents/defendants in the suit to file their Statement of Truth as also the Affidavit of Admission and Denial of the documents and/or the application seeking condonation of
The court emphasized the importance of complying with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Commercial Courts Act 2015, regarding the filing of written statements and the exten....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the defendant to file the written statement within the prescribed period, the consequences of failing to do so, and the applica....
The Commercial Courts Act brings about a substantial change in the provisions relating to the period of filing of the written statement and the power of the Court to condone the delay in filing of th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in commercial suits, the court does not have the power to condone the delay in filing the written statement beyond 120 days from the date of s....
Point of Law : provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 have to be strictly construed and if the provisions are given liberal interpretation, the object behind the enactment, of speedy disposal,....
A written statement filed beyond the statutory period requires a timely condonation application, and failure to provide sufficient grounds renders it inadmissible.
The court holds that delays in filing additional written statements can be condoned under Rule 9 of Order VIII provided there is sufficient cause and no prejudice is caused to the opposing party.
The main legal point established is that while the time schedule for filing a written statement should generally be honored, exceptional situations may warrant an extension to ensure a fair trial and....
Defendants must file a formal application to extend time for the written statement beyond thirty days, as failure to do so results in forfeiture of the right to file.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
