Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, Rekha Palli, JJ.
Vinod Kumar Kad - Appellant
Versus
Girish Kumar Kad - Respondent
FAO(OS) 60 of 2020 & C.M. No. 29846 of 2020
Decided On : 09-02-2021
Limitations for filing written statements were extended due to COVID-19 pandemic, acknowledging difficulties faced by litigants, legitimizing the condonation of delay.
Headnote:(A) Delhi High Court Act, 1966 - Section 10 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 1 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Condonation of delay in filing written statement - The court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge allowing the respondents' application for condonation of delay in filing written statements that were filed beyond the permissible period due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. (Paras 3-9)
(B) Limitation - The Supreme Court's suo moto orders extending periods of limitation during the COVID-19 pandemic are applicable to all litigations. The court emphasized that the inability to file due to lockdown protocols justified the delay. (Paras 6-8)
Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged the allowance of the delayed filing of written statements by the respondents in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and partition concerning specific property. The application for condonation was permitted citing pandemic-related constraints.
Findings of Court:
The court justified the condonation decision based on Supreme Court's orders recognizing difficulties in filing during the pandemic, ruling that the learned Single Judge's order was justified.
Issues: The main issues involved whether the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the delayed filing of the written statement given the pandemic and the availability of online filing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the pandemic's impact was a valid justification for the delay and noted the Supreme Court's orders extended limitations, ruling that the rationale provided by the learned Single Judge was sound.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the appeal and procedural facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contentions regarding delay in filing. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. supreme court's extension of limitation rationale. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. dismissal of the appeal and costs imposed. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)--The present appeal under Section 10 of the DELHI HIGH COURT ACT 1966, assails the order dated 03.09.2020 passed in I.A. No. 7670/2020 in CS (OS) 636/2019 by the learned Single Judge condoning the delayed filing of the written statement by the respondent nos.2 to 5/defendants. The appellants, who filed the suit in question, have also assailed the subsequent order dated 20.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting their prayer for review of the order dated 03.09.2020.
2. The appellants preferred a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and partition in respect of the property bearing no. B-27, Satyawati Colony, Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi 110052. The suit came to be listed before the learned Single Judge on 05.02.2020, on which date the Court, while issuing summons in the suit and notice in the applications, directed the defendants to file the written statement within a period of 30 days. On 13.03.2020, in view of COVID-19 pandemic gripping the world, the Court issued a notification suspending its regular functioning w.e.f. 16.03.2020.
3. It turns out, the respondents failed to file the written statement either within the 30 day-period granted by the Court or within the period of 90 days provided under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The written statement was filed only on 31.08.2020 alongwith an application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement, primarily on the ground that the said delay had been occasioned on account of the respondents' inability to visit their counsel for drafting and filing the written statement on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. The said application has been allowed by learned Single Judge under the impugned order dated 03.09.2020, whereafter the appellant's application seeking review thereof was also rejected on 20.10.2020.
4. The present appeal has been filed primarily on the ground that even though regular functioning of this Court had been suspended with effect from 16.03.2020, an office order permitting mentioning of matters on designated links to request a hearing through video conferencing was issued on 22.04.2020, followed by an office order dated 08.05.2020 which permitted online filing of all kinds of pleading. It has, therefore, been contended that there is no reason as to why the respondents did not file their written statement through online mode, within the time granted to them.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents nos. 2-5 had ample opportunities to file the written statement on time and, therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in condoning the delay in filing the written statement, especially when it was beyond the maximum permissible period of 120 days under the Delhi High Court (Original side) Rules 2018.
6. We are unable to find any merit in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. It is an admitted position that the time within which the respondents could file their written statement in terms of the 2018 Rules expired during the period when the pandemic had already set in and, as a consequence, regular functioning of Courts across the country, including the Apex Court as also this Court, stood suspended. In response to this situation, the Supreme Court took suo moto cognisance of the problems faced by litigants across the country, in filing pleadings within the period of limitation and, consequently, on 23.03.2020 passed the following order in SMW (C) No. 3/2020 titled In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation:
"This Court has taken Suo Motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-1
