JUDGMENT (Oral)

I.A. 8126/2020 (under Order VIII Rule 10, Order XII Rule 6 read with Section151 CPC on behalf of the plaintiff)

1. The present application has been filed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1906 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of the plaintiff for striking off the defence of the defendant.

2. A suit for Specific Performance has been filed for the execution of Sale Deed for property bearing No. 1/124, W.H.S, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi 110015 in favour of the plaintiff along with a relief for Mandatory Injunction, against the defendant.

3. It is submitted in the application that the Written Statement filed by the defendant on 10.01.2020, was returned under objections by the Registry. Thereafter, the Written Statement was re-filed on 28.01.2020 which was again returned under objections. An opportunity was granted to the defendant to file the Written Statement after removing all the defects within two weeks, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- vide Order dated 17.02.2020. However, the defendant has failed to pay the costs till date. The extended time-limit granted vide Order 17.02.2020 also expired on 03.03.2020. The court's functioning, thereafter got restricted since18.03.2020 on account on Covid19 pandemic.

4. It is further stated that till date the Written Statement is not on record as the defendant has taken no steps to remove the defects marked by the Registry, though the plaintiff has filed its replication.

5. It is submitted that the defendant cannot take the plea of COVID-19 Pandemic as time granted to the defendant had expired much earlier, on 03.03.2020. Therefore, the plaintiff has sought for the defence of the defendant to be struck down.

6. The defendant in its Reply has asserted that the present application is infructuous as the defendant has already filed the Written Statement on time which had not come on record only due to technical objections. A copy of the Written Statement had been sent to the plaintiff through speed post, who on receipt of the same, has also filed their Replication. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to file an application under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.

7. It is asserted that the defendant, through its advocate, had removed all the objections in the additional time granted vide Order dated 17.02.2020, and re-filed the Written Statement in accordance with the Order. Further, the defendant gave an Undertaking for the payment of costs on the next date of hearing. However, the Court's working was suspended due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and the matter was not taken up on the next date of hearing.

8. Further, the defendant has marked his presence on each date of hearing. Therefore, it is asserted that the defendant did not take advantage of the lockdown and there is no ground for striking his defence.

9. Submissions heard.

10. For the sake of clarity, the filing details have been tabulated below:

ParticularsDateService of Summons to the defendant15.11.2019Order issued by this court to file the Written Statement within 30 daysOrder dated 20.11.20191st filing of Written Statement10.01.2020 (returned on objections)1st re-filing of written statement28.01.2020 (returned on objections)Two weeks granted for filing the Written Statement subject to the payment of costs of Rs.5,000 to the plaintiff.Order dated 17.02.20222nd re-filing27.02.2020 (not taken on record)3rd re-filing10.12.2023 (returned on objections)4th re-filing22.12.2023 (passed)

11. The record shows that the summons of this case was served on the defendant on 15.11.2019. However, since the defendant had not received the complete paperbook, the same was supplied in court vide Order dated 20.11.2019. This implies that the defendant had the time of 30 days and extended time of 90 days to file the written Statement which implies that the Written Statement could be filed upto 20.03.2020. However, the defendant failed to file the Written Statement within this period.

12. The defendant had

Click Here to Read the rest of this document