IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Beena Goswami – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent
CM(M) 1188 of 2023 & CM Appls. 37899 of 2023, 37900-01 of 2023
Decided On : 01-08-2023
Limitation - Commercial Suit - SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., (2019) 12 SCC 210, MN Automobile Private Limited v. Guriqbal Singh and Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3020
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenges the order striking off the defense of the petitioner in a commercial suit for recovery of money and interest due to failure to file a written statement within the stipulated time.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the petitioner's contention of not receiving the plaint and documents, and the limitation for filing the written statement in commercial suits as per SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and MN Automobile Private Limited v. Guriqbal Singh and Anr.
Issues: Failure to file written statement, non-receipt of plaint and documents, and the applicability of the limitation for filing the written statement in commercial suits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court gave the benefit of doubt to the petitioner for not receiving the paper book and extended the time to file the written statement, emphasizing the need to consider and dispose of cases on merits rather than technicalities.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was granted one week to file the written statement, subject to paying legal costs to the respondent.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)--This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court), North-East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi (`Trial Court') in C.S. (Comm.) No. 36/2023 titled as "State Bank of India v. Beena Goswami Prop of M/s Avni Infratech" whereby the Trial Court struck off the defence of the Petitioner.
1.1. The Petitioner is the original defendant and the Respondent is the original Plaintiff in the commercial suit. The plaintiff has filed a commercial suit for recovery of money and interest thereon from the defendant.
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner herein entered appearance before the Trial Court upon receiving an e-mail on 19.05.2023 from the e-Court regarding the institution of the commercial suit. He states that no summons or copy of the paper book was served on the Petitioner with this e-mail.
2.1. He states that the Petitioner was diligent and duly engaged a counsel, who entered appearance before the Trial Court on 08.06.2023 and undertook to file a written statement within three (3) weeks. He states that since the Petitioner herein was not served with a copy of the plaint and the documents; therefore, the counsel for the Petitioner contacted the counsel for the Respondent for a copy of the plaint and documents.
2.2. He states that since a copy of the plaint and documents were not provided by the counsel for the Respondent, the Petitioner was unable to file his written statement within the time granted by the Trial Court on 08.06.2023 and in these circumstances, the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 13.07.2023 struck off the defence of the Petitioner herein.
2.3. He states that the Petitioner has duly applied for the certified copy of the plaint and the documents on 07.07.2023, however, the certified copies have not been provided by the registry of the Trial Court.
2.4. He states that the only reason the Petitioner herein has been unable to file his written statement is due to the non-furnishing of the plaint and the documents. He states that the Petitioner undertakes to file the written statement within one (1) week from today and is also willing to pay legal costs to compensate the Respondent for the delay in the Trial Court.
3. Issue notice.
4. The learned counsel for the Respondent enters appearance and accepts notice. He states that the Petitioner herein has failed to show any diligence in filing the written statement despite having entered appearance on 08.06.2023.
4.1. He states that a perusal of the orders dated 08.06.2023 and 01.07.2023 would evidence that the Petitioner herein duly entered appearance through his counsel and did not raise any dispute with respect to the non-furnishing of the plaint and documents as is sought to be stated in the present petition.
4.2. He states, however, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Respondent, as directed by this Court, he has (earlier today) furnished a copy of the plaint and the documents to the learned counsel for the Petitioner.
5. In response, the learned counsel for the Petitioner confirms that he has received the entire copy of the plaint and the documents from the Respondent; he has perused the same and is satisfied that the same is complete.
5.1. He reiterates that he will file his written statement, affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed with the plaint, statement of truth and the list of documents of the defendant within a period of one (1) week.
6. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record.
7. As per the statement made in this petition, the summons in the suit were issued by the Trial Court on 18.05.2023. The period of 120 days, even if reckoned from 18.05.2023, would expire on 15.09.2023.
8. The law with respect to the limitation for filing the written statement in commercial suits has been settled by the Supreme Court
The need to consider and dispose of cases on merits rather than technicalities, as emphasized in SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and MN Automobile Private L....
The time for filing the written statement commences from the date when the suit along with the documents is provided to the defendant, and the delay in filing the written statement may be condoned su....
Delay in filing a written statement can be condoned when within the overall condonable limits, prioritizing justice over technicalities.
Point of Law : Honourable Supreme Court has held that amended provisions of Orders V and VIII of Code are mandatory.
The interpretation of procedural rules regarding the filing of written statements and the discretion of the court to permit filing beyond the stipulated period based on sufficient cause.
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....
In commercial suits, a written statement filed beyond 30 days without a condonation application may not be accepted, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural timelines.
The court affirmed that the timelines for filing written statements are directory in non-commercial disputes, allowing the defendant an opportunity to submit his statement upon payment of costs.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.