IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Manoj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Asif Ali Khan – Respondent
CM(M) 1207 of 2023
Decided On : 01-08-2023
Article 227 - Commercial Suit - Constitution of India - 227 - 10.05.2023 - The court discussed the service of summons, condonation of delay in filing the written statement, and the requirement for meaningful service. The judgment in Mr. Rajesh Kathpal vs. M/s Shubh Steel was referenced to support the opinion that the time for filing the written statement commences from the date when the suit along with the documents is provided to the defendant. The court also addressed the issue of the defendant's address and the diligence in raising the issue of missing page no. 14.
Fact of the Case:
The petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order of the Trial Court dismissing the Petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the service of the missing page no. 14 of the agreement was provided to the Petitioner on 07.03.2023, and thus, the time for filing the written statement commenced from that date. The court also held that the delay in filing the written statement should be condoned subject to the payment of legal costs by the Petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the service of summons, condonation of delay in filing the written statement, and the diligence of the Petitioner in raising the issue of the missing page no. 14.
Ratio Decidendi: The time for filing the written statement commences from the date when the suit along with the documents is provided to the defendant. The delay in filing the written statement may be condoned subject to the payment of legal costs.
Final Decision: The impugned order dated 10.05.2023 was set aside, and the Petitioner was directed to pay legal costs and file the written statement within a specified time.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 38689/2023 & 38690/2023 (for exemption)
Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the present applications stand disposed of.
CM(M) 1207/2023 & CM APPL. 38688/2023 (for stay)
1. This petition filed Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by District Judge (Commercial Court-04), South, Saket Courts, New Delhi (`Trial Court') in CS (COMM) No. 482/2022 titled as Asif Ali Khan v. Manoj Kumar whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the Petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement and subsequently declined to take the said written statement on record.
1.1. The Petitioner is the original defendant and the Respondent is original plaintiff in the commercial suit.
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner herein was served with the summons only through the mode of WhatsApp on 26.11.2022.
2.1. He states that the Petitioner engaged a counsel, who while preparing the written statement realised that a crucial page of the purported Agreement to Sale dated 25.08.2016 was missing. He states that the claim in the entire plaint is based on the said agreement and the Petitioner herein disputes the veracity of the said agreement. He states that the purported Agreement has been filed by the plaintiff with the plaint and relied upon the same.
2.2. He states that the counsel for the Petitioner made attempts to reach out to the counsel for the Respondent for providing the missing page no. 14 of the paper book. He states that the missing page no. 14 was admittedly provided to the Petitioner's counsel only on 07.03.2023.
2.3. He states that as the missing page no. 14 was provided on 07.03.2023; therefore, the statutory period for filing the written statement is to be reckoned from the said date; as the complete set of the plaint along with documents has been furnished to the Petitioner. He states the statutory period cannot be reckoned from 26.11.2022, when an incomplete paper book was served on the Petitioner.
2.4. He states that thereafter on 10.05.2023, the Petitioner herein filed the written statement along with an application for condoning the delay of 34 days. He states that the since the complete paper book was provided on 07.03.2023, the statutory period of 30 days recorded from 07.03.2023 expired on 06.04.2023 and therefore, the further delay of 34 days as on 10.05.2023 should have been condoned by the Trial Court.
2.5. He states that the observation of the Trial Court that the Petitioner herein refused to accept summons through registered post on 26.11.2022 is incorrect. He states that in the memo of parties filed with the plaint, the Respondent has furnished two (2) addresses for service on the Petitioner herein i.e., (i) H Block, 13C, First Floor, Saket, New Delhi - 110017 (`Saket') and (ii) J-7, Sainik Farm, Lane No.14, New Delhi 110018 (`Sainik Farms').
2.6. He states that the Petitioner herein has shifted from the premises at Saket almost three (3) years ago and therefore no service of summons could have received by the Petitioner on the said address through registered post.
2.7. He further states with respect to the Sainik Farms address, the said address as set out in the memo of parties is incorrect. He states that the correct address of the Petitioner at Sainik Farms is as under:
J-7/B, Sainik Farms, Lane No. 15, New Delhi- 110068
2.8. He states that due to the incorrect address the registered post could not be received by the Petitioner even at the Sainik Farms address.
2.9. He states that grave prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner herein if the written statement is not taken on record.
2.10. He prays that the legal costs be imposed on the Petitioner and the written statement be taken on record. He states that a statement of truth in support of the written statement along with the affidavit of admission-denial of documents filed with the plaint a
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....
A delayed written statement may be accepted if condoned by the court; however, errors in earlier decisions cannot be challenged without timely objection.
Delay in filing a written statement can be condoned when within the overall condonable limits, prioritizing justice over technicalities.
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.
Timeliness in filing written statements is crucial; any delay beyond prescribed limits without an accompanying application for condonation is impermissible.
Point of Law : Delay in filing Written statement - Commercial Court dealing with a commercial suit had no discretion to condone delay and could not allow the written statement to be taken on record b....
The central legal point established is the necessity for courts to consider the impact of extraordinary circumstances, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and relevant procedural provisions before dismiss....
Substantial justice prevails over technicalities; delay in filing Written Statement within 120 days can be condoned if justified.
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.