Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Ankush Rishi – Appellant
Versus
Sarvesh Kumar & Anr. – Respondents
CM(M) 1349 of 2023 & CM APPLs. 43079-81 of 2023
Decided On : 22-08-2023
Condonation of Delay - Civil Procedure - The court allowed the petitioner's application seeking extension of time to file replication and affidavit of admission/denial of documents, highlighting the need to expedite the trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenged the order of the Trial Court allowing the respondent's application for condonation of delay in filing a written statement.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the limited prayer made by the petitioner and granted an extension of four weeks to file the replication and affidavit of admission/denial of documents, aiming to expedite the trial.
Issues: The issues involved the deliberate delay in filing the written statement by the respondent and the truncated period given to the petitioner to file the replication.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need to expedite the trial and ensure fairness in the proceedings.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner to file the replication and affidavit of admission/denial of documents within four weeks, and disposed of the petition and pending applications.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 43080/2023 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 1349/2023 & CM APPLs. 43079/2023, 43081/2023
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns the order dated 26.07.2023 passed by District Judge-02, Dwarka Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court') in suit bearing no. CS DJ ADJ 551/2022, titled as Ankush Rishi v. Sarvesh Kumar & Anr., whereby the application of the Respondents for condonation of delay of 125 days in filing written statement was allowed.
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that no reasonable grounds were pleaded by the Respondent in the application seeking condonation of delay. He states that the Respondent had been pursuing the counter suit filed by him against the Petitioner herein. However, the Respondent deliberately delayed filing the written statement in the present suit to the prejudice the rights of the Petitioner.
2.1 He states that the Trial Court should at least have imposed costs on the Respondent for the deliberate delay caused by the Respondent in filing of the written statement.
2.2 He states that the Petitioner herein is further aggrieved of the fact that the Trial Court has granted only one (1) week to the Petitioner to file his replication. He states that the said truncated period of one (1) week prejudices the plaintiff.
2.3 He states he is not pressing any other relief. The said statement is taken on record.
3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that with a view to expedite the trial, he seeks a limited relief in this matter which is extension of time by four (4) weeks from today to file his replication as well as his affidavit of admission/denial of documents.
4. This Court has considered the submissions of the counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record.
5. In view of the limited prayer made by the Petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the said extension of time for filing replication should be granted to the Petitioner.
6. Accordingly, it is directed that the Petitioner shall file his replication along with the affidavit of admission/denial of documents within a period of four (4) weeks from today.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.
8. The pending applications are disposed of.
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.
A change of counsel does not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning significant, inordinate delays in procedural filings, such as the submission of a written statement. Courts will not excuse su....
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....
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.
A delayed written statement may be accepted if condoned by the court; however, errors in earlier decisions cannot be challenged without timely objection.
The discretion to condone delay under the Limitation Act is based on the explanation provided, not strictly on the length of the delay, emphasizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities.
The court emphasized the need for granting procedural justice by allowing petitioners to seek condonation of delay in filing their written statement despite initial rejection.
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
