Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANOJ JAIN, J.
MGO India Private Limited Through Its Authorised Representative - Petitioner
Versus
Abhinandan Gupta - Respondent
CM(M) 1466 Of 2022 & CM APPL. 56160 Of 2022
Decided On : 29-11-2024
(A) Order XXXVII CPC - Summary Suit - The petitioner filed a recovery suit, claiming delay in the defendant's appearance. The learned Trial Court found no delay, as service was deemed effective from the date of appearance. The court emphasized that the pandemic justified any delay in proceedings. (Paras 14, 20, 22)
(B) Limitation - The Supreme Court's ruling on the exclusion of limitation periods during the pandemic was applied, confirming that the defendant's appearance was timely under the circumstances. (Paras 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a recovery suit on 20.12.2021, with the defendant appearing on 02.02.2022, claiming no prior service of summons.
Findings of Court:
The learned Trial Court's ruling that there was no delay in the defendant's appearance was upheld, with the court finding no impropriety in the order.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendant's appearance was timely and if the pandemic justified any delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the defendant's actions were equivalent to entering appearance, and the pandemic's impact on proceedings warranted consideration of the timeline for service.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Manoj Jain, J.)
1. Petitioner, who had filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, is aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2022 passed by learned Trial Court whereby the learned Trial Court has observed that there was no delay on the part of defendant in entering appearance.
2. The facts lie in a very narrow compass.
3. Petitioner had filed the aforesaid recovery suit on 20.12.2021.
4. Learned Trial Court directed issuance of summons returnable 02.02.2022.
5. Though the plaintiff (petitioner herein) submitted on record an affidavit of service, the learned Trial Court, specifically, observed that the process had been received back unserved with the report “left without instructions”.
6. Fact remains that on 02.02.2022, there was appearance from the side of the defendant as well. His counsel joined proceedings through videoconferencing and apprised that the defendant had not received any copy of plaint and documents. Learned Trial Court directed the same to be supplied during the course of the day through WhatsApp and email.
7. Simultaneously, defendant was also given liberty to file appearance within the stipulated period, after receiving such copies.
8. The copy of the plaint was stated to have been supplied same day.
9. As per Order XXXVII Rule 3 CPC, the defendant was required to enter appearance within a period of 10 days of service.
10. It seems that, in his over enthusiasm and without there being any service of summons for judgment, defendant, instead of merely entering appearance, submitted leave to defend along with affidavit. The same was transmitted by him through electronic mode on email ID of learned Trial Court as well as to plaintiff on 12.02.2022.
11. Interestingly, defendant also moved an application seeking condonation of delay in entering appearance on the ground that delay had occasioned on account of ongoing pandemic of Covid-19. It was also reiterated that even otherwise, the leave to defend had been sent to the email ID of the learned Trial Court on 12.02.2022 itself.
12. The aforesaid application was opposed by the plaintiff (petitioner herein) who claimed that there was no sufficient cause explained by the defendant for belated entering of appearance. It was claimed that defendant had rather been served much prior to 02.02.2022 and since there was no appearance within the stipulated period of 10 days, defendant was not entitled to seek any condonation of delay. Curiously, plaintiff claimed in his reply that though the Defendant entered appearance through his Counsel on 02.02.2022, however, at no point of time during the entire proceedings of the matter till date, they bothered to inform the Court regarding the date on which he was actually served.
13. Plaintiff is aggrieved by the observations made by the learned Trial Court to the effect that there was no delay in entering the appearance.
14. Needless to say, the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the Court is required to exercise its supervisory powers. The duty of the supervisory Court is to interdict if it finds that the findings are perverse i.e. (i) Erroneous on account of non-consideration of material evidence, or (ii) Being conclusions which are contrary to the evidence, or (iii) Based on inferences that are impermissible in law. Reference be made to Puri Investments Versus Young Friends and Co. and Others: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 283.
15. In the present case, there is nothing to indicate the same.
16. Facts are lucid and clear and it cannot be said that there was any kind of delay in entering appearance.
17. Reason is two-fold.
18. Firstly, service upon defendant is to be reckoned only from 02.02.2022 and same day, the plaintiff was directed to supply complete set of the plaint through WhatsApp and email and, therefore, the period would start to run thereafter only.
19. Though the defendant was under obligation to mere enter appearance and in his over zealousness, he went overboard and subm
The court upheld the Trial Court's finding of no delay in the defendant's appearance, considering the pandemic's impact on service timelines.
Timely appearance in court is essential under the CPC, and failure to comply without justifiable reasons can lead to dismissal of applications for condonation of delay.
Condonation of delay is a matter of discretion, and the words 'sufficient cause' in the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice.
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 established that inordinate delays in litigation must be justified with substantial evidence, and failure to do so results in dismissal of petitions.
The court held that the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be construed liberally to ensure substantial justice, especially when the delay is influenced....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the exercise of discretion to advance su....
The court emphasized that applications for condonation of delay should be decided on merits, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities, especially when the delay is not due to negligence.
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
