IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Shraddha Shandilyayan - Appellant
Versus
Livecities Media Private Limited & Ors. - Respondents
CS(OS) 641 of 2018
Decided On : 21-02-2024
Limitation Act, 1963 - Condonation of Delay - CPC, 1908 - Order IX Rule 7, Order VIII Rule 1, Section 151 - Setting aside ex parte Order and condonation of delay in filing Written Statement - [I.A. 13846/2022, I.A. 13748/2022, I.A. 13845/2022, I.A. 13747/2022] - The court discussed the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 and CPC, 1908 related to condonation of delay and setting aside ex parte orders. It emphasized the timelines for filing written statements and the limitations on extending the filing period, as well as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the limitation period. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions and the failure to comply with the defined timelines.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant sought to set aside an ex parte order and condone delay in filing a written statement. The plaintiff opposed, citing the defendant's failure to file the statement within the prescribed timeline.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant failed to file the written statement within the prescribed 120-day period, which is not extendable beyond the defined period. The applications seeking condonation of delay were dismissed.
Issues: The issues involved setting aside an ex parte order, condoning delay in filing a written statement, and the interpretation of timelines under CPC, 1908 and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on limitation periods.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant's failure to file the written statement within the prescribed 120-day period, which is not extendable beyond the defined period, led to the dismissal of the applications seeking condonation of delay.
Final Decision: The applications seeking condonation of delay were dismissed.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
I.A. 13846/2022 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908)
1. By way of present application, the applicant/defendant No. 2 seeks condonation of 130 days' delay in re-filing I.A. 13845/2022 under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC, 1908").
2. For the reasons and grounds stated in the present application, the application is allowed, the delay of 130 days in re-filing I.A. 13845/2022 under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC, 1908 is condoned.
3. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.
I.A. 13748/2022 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908
4. By way of present application, the applicant/defendant No. 2 seeks condonation of 130 days' delay in re-filing I.A. 13747/2022 under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151of the CPC, 1908.
5. For the reasons and grounds stated in the present application, the application is allowed, the delay of 130 days in re-filing I.A. 13747/2022 under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151of the CPC, 1908 is condoned.
6. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.
I.A. 13845/2022 (u/O IX Rule 7 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908 for setting aside ex parte Order dated 13.11.2019 by D-2)
7. By way of Application under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908, defendant No. 2 seeks to set aside the ex parte Order dated 13.11.2019 vide which it was proceeded against ex parte.
8. It is submitted in the application that the learned counsel for defendant No. 2 could not appear on 13.11.2019, the day when the ex-parte Order had been passed, for the reason that the grandmother of the learned counsel of the defendant No. 2 had expired on 13.11.2019 and he had gone to his native village in the early morning on the said date, for the last rites of his grandmother. He had requested his colleague to appear on his behalf, but by the time his colleague appeared, the defendant No. 2 had already been proceeded ex parte.
9. Thereafter, the second application for amendment of the Plaint was filed on 29.11.2019 and the same was allowed vide Order dated 20.12.2019.The counsel for defendant No. 2 was in the process of preparing the Written Statement of the amended Plaint, when he noticed that the defendant No. 2 has been proceeded ex parte.
10. Therefore, the prayer is made that the Order dated 13.11.2019 whereby the applicant/defendant No. 2 was proceeded ex parte, may be set aside and an opportunity be given to file the Written Statement.
11. The plaintiff in its Reply has contended that the applicant was proceeded against ex-parte after seven months of his service and had time to file the Written Statement. Further, there is no explanation forthcoming for non-appearance of the applicant when the matter was listed on 01.08.2019, 13.11.2019, 2.12.2019, 20.12.2019, and 22.01.2020.
12. Furthermore, the said application under Order IX Rule 7, CPC, 1908 seeking to set aside the Order dated 13.11.2019 kept on lying in defect for more than two and a half years before the Registry, without any legitimate explanation for the delay in re-filing the application.
13. It is, therefore, submitted that the present application is without merit and is liable to be dismissed.
14. Submissions heard.
15. To comprehend the assertions made by the non-applicant/plaintiff, it would be relevant to mention the following dates:
| S. No. | Date | Remarks |
| 1. | 07.03.2019 | Defendant No. 2 served. |
| 2. | 15.03.2019 | I.A. 3884/2018 u/O VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908 was filed on behalf of plaintiff. None appeared on behalf of defendant No. 2 |
| 3. | 25.04.2019 | Counsel for defendant No. 2 appeared for the first time. |
| 4. | 03.07.2019 | None appeared on behalf of defendant No. 2 |
| 5. | 24.07.2019 | Counsel for defendant No. 2 appeared. |
| 6. | 01.08.2019 | None appeared on behalf of defendant No. 2. I.A. 3884/2019 u/O VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908 was withdrawn by plaintiff. |
| 7. | 13.11.2019 | Defendant No. 2 was proceeded ex parte. |
| 8. | 29.11.2019 | I.A. 16944/2019 u/O VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908 w |
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 affirmed that procedural rules regarding the filing of written statements can be interpreted flexibly to ensure justice, allowing extensions in exceptional circumstances.
Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 is mandatory, prescribing an absolute outer limit of 120 days for filing written statements. Courts have no jurisdiction to c....
Point of Law : Civil Law – Condonation of Delay - Extension of time for filing written statement - Court must be satisfied that the defendant was prevented from a sufficient cause for exceptional and....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the time for filing a written statement should be reckoned from the date of the order disposing of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of ....
The court ruled that the limitation for filing a written statement is strict and can only be extended in exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case.
The striking off of a defendant's defence due to late filing of a written statement, despite court's extension, is unjustifiable, and such extensions are regarded as directory rather than mandatory, ....
The court may condone delays in filing written statements due to extraordinary circumstances, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, emphasizing the need for flexibility in applying limitation laws.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.