Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
M/s Superus Guesthouse Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Varghese George – Respondent
CM(M) 1059 of 2023
Decided On : 02-08-2023
Condonation of Delay - Civil Suit - Order IX Rule 7 CPC, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - [Randhir Singh v. Urvashi Suri, CM (M) 717/2023, Bharat Kalra v. Raj Kishan Chabra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 613, Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N v. Union of India, (2005)6 SCC 344, Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005)4 SCC 480, Jamaluddin v. Nawabuddin Neutral Citation Number - 2023/DHC/001211] - The court discussed the delay in filing the written statement and the possibility of condoning the delay subject to compensatory costs, emphasizing that disputes should be resolved on merits rather than technicalities. The court referred to various judgments, including Randhir Singh v. Urvashi Suri, to support its decision to set aside the impugned orders and allow the written statement to be taken on record, subject to strict terms and payment of legal costs.
Fact of the Case:
The petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the Trial Court's order dismissing the Petitioner's application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the order dated 02.11.2022 and the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The Petitioners, as defendants, failed to file the written statement in a civil suit for recovery of money, leading to the Trial Court closing their right to file the written statement.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court did not suffer from any infirmity and was correct in facts. However, considering the possibility of condoning the delay in filing the written statement, the Court referred to relevant judgments and held that it would serve the interest of justice to allow the Petitioners to defend the case on merits, subject to strict terms and payment of legal costs.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delay in filing the written statement, the Trial Court's order closing the right of the Petitioners to file the written statement, and the possibility of condoning the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the principle that disputes should be resolved on merits rather than technicalities, as supported by various judgments, including Randhir Singh v. Urvashi Suri. The Court set aside the impugned orders and allowed the written statement to be taken on record, subject to strict terms and payment of legal costs.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the written statement of the Petitioners to be taken on record, subject to strict terms and payment of legal costs.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 02.05.2023 passed by Additional District Judge-01, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in Civil Suit no. 6712020 titled as Varghese George v. M/S Superus Guesthouse Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. (`Trial Court'), whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the Petitioner's application under Order IX Rule 7 Code of Civil Procedure (`CPC') for setting aside the order dated 02.11.2022 along with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the written statement.
1.1. The Trial Court vide order dated 02.11.2022, closed the right of the Petitioners to file a written statement, since the Petitioners had failed to file the written statement.
1.2. The Petitioners are defendants and the Respondent is the plaintiff in the civil suit file for recovery of money.
2. The learned counsel for the Respondent has entered appearance on advance service. He states that the Petitioners have not shown any just cause for their non-appearance before the Trial Court despite due receipt of summons and the delay in filing the written statement.
2.1. He states that the Trial Court at paragraph 10 of the impugned order accurately sets out the negligence exhibited by the Petitioners herein in conducting the trial. Paragraph 10 of the impugned order reads as under:
"10. Very conveniently condonation of delay was sought on account of applicants/defendants being let down by their previous counsel. The record shows that appearance was entered on behalf of the defendant on 05.07.2021 through counsel Sh. Rashid Saeed followed by appearance of Ms. Aashi Arora on 08.09.2021 as well as 20.01.2022. On these dates, the proceedings were conducted through video conferencing. However, no vakalatnama till, then was on record. Thereafter, the effective hearing was held before this court on 30.05.2022 and one Sh. Salauddin Qureshi without any authority appeared. Even though, it is sought to be shown that the previous counsel was not diligent bur considering thar no vakalatnama was filed till 03.03.2023 and as board resolution of the defendant no. 1 is itself dated 12.11.2022 (after the Court proceeded ex-parte against the defendants/applicants and even the SPA of defendant no. 2 in favour of attorney Sh. Salahuddin Qureshi is dated 13.03.2022), the attempt to shift all blame upon the previous counsel falls flat. It is apparent from the record that till, 12.11.2022, the applicants/defendants had not taken any steps to appropriately defend themselves. Therefore, the ground on which condonation of delay has been sought is frivolous and fails to inspire the confidence of this Court. It is for this reason that the Court is neither inclined to condone the delay in preferring application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC or allow application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC as they are premised upon exactly similar averments."
(Emphasis supplied)
2.2. He states that though the Petitioners were proceeded ex-parte on 02.11.2022, the Petitioners elected to file the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC and the written statement after a further delay of 146 days only on 29.04.2023.
2.3. He states on 03.03.2023, the Petitioners herein had entered appearance through a new lawyer who filed his vakalatnama, however, even on the said date no appropriate application was filed for setting aside of the order dated 02.11.2022. He states in fact the legal costs of Rs. 5,000/-imposed vide order dated 03.03.2023 have not been paid till date.
2.4. He states that the Respondent herein has examined two witnesses i.e., PW-1 and PW-2 on 02.11.2022 and 17.01.2023 respectively. He states that the matter is now listed on 23.08.2023 for addressing final arguments. He states that Respondent is an employee and has instituted this civil suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,20,000/- p
The central legal point established in the judgment is that disputes should be resolved on merits rather than technicalities, and in deserving cases, delay in filing pleadings can be condoned subject....
The court emphasizes the need to resolve disputes on merits rather than on technicalities and allows the delay in filing the written statement, subject to compensatory costs.
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.
Delay in filing the written statement can be condoned in deserving cases, subject to compensatory cost, and disputes should be resolved on merits rather than technicalities.
The court affirmed that delays in non-commercial suits should be condoned leniently to ensure justice and that denying a party's right to a defense must be carefully evaluated.
Failure to file the written statement and subsequent attempts to seek permission to file the same without justification may lead to dismissal of the petition and the impugned orders.
Liberal approach in construing sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the importance of deciding matters on merits rather than technical grounds.
The need for disputes to be resolved on merits rather than technicalities, and the consideration of the petitioner's defense to serve the interest of justice and the respondents, bringing finality to....
A delayed written statement may be accepted if condoned by the court; however, errors in earlier decisions cannot be challenged without timely objection.
The court ruled that a party's right to file a written statement should not be denied due to delay, provided costs are imposed, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial.
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
