Back
SHALINDER KAUR
Nitin Kataria – Appellant
Versus
Varun Jain – Respondent
Key Points: - Petitioner challenged orders striking off defence and dismissing review in commercial suit due to delayed and defective written statement (!) (!) (!) - Suit for recovery of Rs. 3,38,370 filed against petitioner as legal heir; summons served on 03.06.2022, written statement filed on 18.07.2022 without condonation application, statement of truth, or affidavit of admission/denial (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Order VIII Rule 1 CPC mandates written statement within 30 days of summons service, extendable up to 90/120 days with recorded reasons and costs; beyond that, right to file is forfeited (!) (!) (!) (!) - Written statement must be accompanied by statement of truth (Order VI Rule 15A CPC) and affidavit of admission/denial of documents with list (Order XI Rules 7-9 CPC) (!) (!) (!) - Trial court struck off defence on 09.11.2022 as written statement was late, defective, and no condonation sought; review dismissed as time-barred and no manifest error (!) (!) (!) - Petitioner's excuse of wrong order uploaded on e-court portal rejected, as proxy counsel present, no inspection of records done, and no condonation filed (!) (!) (!) (!) - High Court held amended Order VIII Rule 1 CPC mandatory, citing SCG Contracts (2019) 12 SCC 210 and Vidhi Electrical (2022 SCC OnLine Del 1429) (!) (!) - Petition under Article 227 dismissed; no illegality in impugned orders (!)
JUDGMENT
Shalinder Kaur, J. - The Petitioner herein is seeking to impugn the orders dated 09.11.2022 and 25.03.2023 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court), North District, Rohini, Delhi ("Trial Court") in CS(COMM) No. 125/2022 titled as "Varun Jain vs. Nitin Kataria" whereby the Learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner herein seeking review of the order dated 09.11.2022 vide which his defence was struck off. Aggrieved by the aforesaid position, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The Petitioner is the defendant and the Respondent is Plaintiff in the commercial suit, which is pending adjudication before the Learned Trial Court.
3. The limited issue that arises before this court is whether the Learned Trial Court was correct in striking off the defence in view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Shorn of superfluities, the facts necessary for the adjudication of the present matter are that the Petitioner herein is the son/legal heir of Late Shri Jai Prakash Kataria who was the proprietor of M/s Kataria Trading Company (Later renamed to M/s Nikunj Sales) who tra
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in commercial suits, the court does not have the power to condone the delay in filing the written statement beyond 120 days from the date of s....
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 court emphasized the importance of complying with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Commercial Courts Act 2015, regarding the filing of written statements and the exten....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the defendant to file the written statement within the prescribed period, the consequences of failing to do so, and the applica....
The Commercial Courts Act brings about a substantial change in the provisions relating to the period of filing of the written statement and the power of the Court to condone the delay in filing of th....
The court reiterated that strict compliance with procedural timelines for filing written statements and condonation applications is essential in commercial litigation.
The amended provision allowing 120 days to file a written statement under the CPC is applicable, and dismissal on procedural grounds without considering such amendment is unreasonable.
In commercial suits, written statements within 120 days from valid summons service (with plaint copy) must be accepted; extensions lean towards condonation if justified; procedural timelines subservi....
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
