Back
SACHIN DATTA
Satish Kumar Sakuja – Appellant
Versus
Appolo Cranes Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Key Points: - The 30-day period to file a reply under Order XIII-A CPC is directory, not mandatory; condonation of delay is permissible with costs (!) (!) (!) - The court may condone the delay in filing the reply upon showing sufficient cause and due diligence, with potential costs to the plaintiff; delay may be condoned as an exceptional measure (!) (!) (!) - In this case, condonation of delay was allowed subject to costs of Rs. 50,000 payable to the plaintiff within four weeks, and the reply placed on record subject to payment (!)
JUDGMENT
Sachin Datta, J. - IA No.2154/2023 (filed on behalf of the defendants seeking condonation of delay in filing reply to the application under Order XIII-A Rule 1, 6 & 7 read with Section 151 CPC) and 19935/2022 (under Section 151 CPC, filed on behalf of plaintiff seeking closure of right of the defendants to file reply to IA No.10358/2022)
1. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present applications, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff has filed an application [IA. No. 10358 / 2022] under Order XIII-A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") seeking a summary judgment. Vide order dated 08.07.2022, notice of the said application was issued and accepted by the defendants and the defendants were given four weeks' time to file a reply. However, no reply came to be filed in the said time period. Vide order dated 11.10.2022, the defendants were granted a further period of two weeks to file a reply. No reply came to be filed even in this extended time period. On 25.11.2022, the present application [IA No. 19935/2022] came to be filed by the plaintiff seeking closure of the right of the defendants to file reply to the application under Order XIII-A of CPC. On 28.11.2022, repl
The 30-day period to file a reply under Order XIII-A of CPC is directory, allowing for condonation of delay subject to sufficient cause and costs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on extending the filing period for written statements under CPC, 1908, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on limitation periods....
The court holds that delays in filing additional written statements can be condoned under Rule 9 of Order VIII provided there is sufficient cause and no prejudice is caused to the opposing party.
The Rules framed by the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, prevail over the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).
Section 148 CPC does not apply to the commercial court, even if accepted, the Commercial Court shall have power to provide a new time period for filing written statement under Section 15(4) of the Ac....
In commercial disputes, the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay must be stringent, ensuring timely resolution and preventing negligence from being a basis for delays.
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
