Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
M/s Unilec Engineers Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Hpl Electric And Power Ltd. – Respondent
CM(M) 990 of 2023 & CM APPL. 31716 of 2023
Decided On : 17-08-2023
Written Statement - Commercial Suit - Order V Rule 1 CPC, Act of 2015 - [Order V Rule 1 CPC, Act of 2015] - The court discussed the provisions of Order V Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and emphasized the curable nature of the defects in the written statement. The court highlighted the importance of allowing amendments to cure defects in verification and pleading, ensuring time-bound disposal of claims while adjudicating upon the defence of the defendant.
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenges the Trial Court's order dismissing the application to cure defects in the written statement filed by the defendant in a commercial suit for recovery of an amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the written statement was filed within the statutory period of limitation and the defects were curable in nature. The court emphasized the importance of adjudicating upon the defendant's defence and allowing amendments to cure defects in verification and pleading.
Issues: The issues revolved around the timeliness of filing the written statement, the curability of the defects, and the defendant's right to have its defence adjudicated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the curable nature of the defects, the importance of adjudicating upon the defendant's defence, and the need to ensure time-bound disposal of claims while regulating accuracy in pleadings.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Trial Court's order, granted permission to cure the defects, and directed the defendant to pay legal costs to the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugns the order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the DJ (Commercial)-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court') in CS (Comm.) No. 3014/2019, whereby the Trial Court dismissed the application filed on 16.01.2023 by the Petitioner for curing the defects in the written statement filed on 26.10.2021 and struck off the written statement filed by the Petitioner.
1.1. The Trial Court struck off the written statement on the ground that (i) the same was not signed on each page, (ii) it was not accompanied with the statement of truth, and (iii) and the defendant had not filed an affidavit of admission/denial of documents.
1.2. The Trial Court held that the application for curing the defects was filed after the maximum period of 120 days to file the written statement as described under Order V Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC'), as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (`Act of 2015').
2. The Petitioner is the defendant no.1 and the Respondent is the plaintiff in the commercial suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 28,18,062/- along with interest at 15% per annum.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the written statement was filed by the Petitioner on 26.10.2021 after serving an advance copy of the same to the Respondent.
3.1. He states that the replication to the written statement was duly filed by the Respondent on 07.12.2021. In the said replication, no objection was raised by the Respondent as regards non-signing of each page of the written statement or non-filing of the statement of truth or the affidavit of admission/denial of documents.
3.2. He states that on 04.07.2022, when the matter was listed before the Trial Court, it was the learned Judge who made an observation that the written statement was not compliant with the provisions of Order VI Rule 15A of CPC as amended by Act of 2015. He states it was thereafter, that the Respondent herein raised said objection and filed a formal application on 25.07.2022, under Order VI Rule 15A(1) and (5) of CPC, as amended by Act of 2015 for taking off from the record the written statement.
3.3. He states that the Petitioner herein as well filed an application on 16.01.2023 seeking permission of the Trial Court to cure the defects and file the statement of truth. He states that the said defects are curable in nature and in this regard, he relies upon the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Harji Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 2457.
3.4. He states that the Petitioner be subjected to reasonable legal costs and be permitted to cure the said defects.
4. The learned counsel for the Respondent has entered appearance. He states that the Petitioner herein was duly served on 17.03.2021 with the summons and he unreasonably delayed the filing of the written statement by filing the same on 26.10.2021.
4.1. He states that though the defects in the written statement were made known to the Petitioner as early as on 04.07.2022, the application seeking to cure the said defects was filed belatedly on 16.01.2023.
4.2. He states therefore, due to this lackadaisical approach of the defendant, the Trial Court has rightly declined to grant permission to the Petitioner to cure the said defects.
5. This Court has considered the submission of the parties and perused the record.
6. The Petitioner on 17.07.2023 has filed before this Court a copy of the written statement duly signed on each page accompanied with the statement of truth and the affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff.
7. It is matter of record that Petitioner entered appearance on 17.03.2021 and the written statement was filed on 26.10.2021. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition 3/2020 in `Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation', the limitation period s
The main legal point established in the judgment is the curable nature of defects in the written statement and the importance of adjudicating upon the defendant's defence while ensuring time-bound di....
The defendants violated the rules of pleadings by amending the written statement beyond the scope of law defined in Order VI Rule 16 of CPC. The Court allowed the amended written statement to be take....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the discretion to allow amendments should be exercised judiciously, and no application for amendment should be allowed after the trial has com....
The filing of the written statement and bringing it on record are separate matters. Filing the written statement without the affidavit of admission/denial of documents is a defect that can be cured w....
The curable nature of procedural defects and the directory nature of procedural provisions under the CPC and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between filing a written statement and bringing it on record, and the consequences of not filing an affidavit of admission/denial o....
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 mandatory nature of the amended provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the consequences of non-filing of the written statement, as well as the requirement for th....
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
