IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Hicinko Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Roshan Shimal - Respondent
CM(M) 763 of 2022 & CM Appl. 33855 of 2022
Decided On : 02-08-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. closure of written statement right upon non-filing (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court observed no grounds for interference (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. written statement allowed with costs (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. expedite trial process (Para 7 , 8) |
1. The impugned order, dated 22nd January 2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in CS 572/2019 (Roshan Shimal v. M/s Hicinko Pv. Ltd & Ors.), closes the right of the petitioners, as the defendants before the learned ADJ, to file written statement.
2. The list of dates filed with the petition discloses that the summons were issued in the suit on 3rd October 2019, whereafter opportunity was granted to the petitioners to file written statement on 10th December 2019 and 4th September 2020. It was only when no written statement was forthcoming despite nearly a year and a half having passed since issuance of summons that, by order dated 22nd January 2021, the learned ADJ closed the right to file written statement.
3. No fault can be found with the learned ADJ in taking such a decision. Ordinarily, no case for interference with such an order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be made out.
4. However, learned Counsel for the respondent has fairly agreed to have the written statement placed on record subject to terms.
5. In view thereof and keeping in mind the right of every party to be entitled to prosecute his case in accordance with law, this Court permits the written statement, stated to have been filed by the petitioners after his right was closed by the order dated 22nd January 2021, to be taken on record, subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/-, to be paid to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft within a week from today. Proof of payment of costs would also be furnished before the learned Trial Court. Failure to pay costs, as afore-directed, shall result in revitalization of the impugned order and closure of the petitioners' right to file written statement.
6. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
7. Learned Trial Court is requested to proceed with the suit as expeditiously as possible.
8. Miscellaneous application is also disposed of.
Closure of the right to file a written statement by the trial court can be revisited if the parties agree, with costs imposed ensuring fairness in the proceedings.
Strict adherence to procedural deadlines for filing written statements is essential; ignorance of law does not excuse late filings.
The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition due to the petitioner's failure to file written statements within the stipulated time, emphasizing adherence to procedural timelines.
Trial Courts have discretion to grant last opportunities for filing written statements, emphasizing that extensions should not be routine but can be justified based on case circumstances.
The written statement's filing deadline was extended due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and a written statement not timely filed without condonation can be accepted if filed during the extended period.
Cases should be considered and disposed of on merits rather than technicalities, and the delay in filing the written statement should not prevent the defendant from entitlement to file it.
Liberal approach in construing sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the importance of deciding matters on merits rather than technical grounds.
The court emphasized the need for granting procedural justice by allowing petitioners to seek condonation of delay in filing their written statement despite initial rejection.
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.