JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)

I.A. 4616/2021 (O-VIII R-1 of CPC)

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the defendant no.1 under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking condonation of delay in filing written statement. Notice in this application was issued on 26th March, 2021. Reply has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff opposing the present application.

2. The relevant facts for deciding the present application are set out hereunder:

2.1. On 10th February, 2020, summons in the suit were served on the defendant no.1.

2.2. On 11th March, 2020, the 30 days period prescribed for filing of written statement expired.

2.3. On 9th June, 2020, the condonable period for filing written statement in terms of second proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC expired.

2.4. On 17th October, 2020, the written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant no.1 along with affidavit of admission/denial of documents.

2.5. On 18nd March, 2021, the present application was filed seeking condonation of delay in filing written statement.

3. Counsel for the defendant no.1 relies upon various orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020 to submit that the period from 15th March, 2020 till 28th February, 2022 is to be excluded for the purposes of calculating limitation. The defendant no.1 bona fide believed that the summons of the suit were served on the defendant no.1 on 20th February, 2020 and therefore, the period of thirty days would have expired on 20th March, 2020, when the operation of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid writ petition came into effect. It was only on 10th February, 2021 when the defendant no.1 inspected the records of the present suit, it came to its knowledge that as per the records of the suit, the summons were served on the defendant no.1 on 10th February, 2020.

4. On merits, the counsel for the defendant no.1 submits that on account of onset of COVID-19 Pandemic, there were restrictions on movement in the NCR of Delhi that restricted its office functioning. Therefore, it was difficult for the defendant no.1 to meet its counsels and have the written statement prepared.

5. Per contra, the counsel for the plaintiff submits that no explanation has been given on behalf of the defendant no.1 for not filing written statement within the thirty days period that expired on 10th March, 2020. He further submits that even though the written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant no.1 on 17th October, 2020, the present application has been filed only on 18th March, 2021 and therefore, the written statement cannot be permitted to be taken on record in view of the judgment passed by this Court in OK Play India Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Distributors, 2021 SCC OnLine Delhi 4043.

6. I have heard the counsels for the parties and considered the rival contentions.

7. In the first order passed by the Supreme Court on 23rd March, 2020 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020, reported as Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In Re, (2020) 19 SCC 10, it was held that the period of limitation in all proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or special law, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March, 2020 till further orders. The relevant observations are set out below:

"2. To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective courts/tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or special laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15-3-2020 till further order(s) to be passed by this Court in present proceedings."

8. In the subsequent order passed in the said writ petition on 8th March, 2021, reported as Cognizance for Extensio