Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
Walnut Pictures And Ors - Petitioners
Versus
Rajyesh Patni - Respondent
CM(M) 3575 of 2024
Decided on : 21-01-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Filing of Written Statement - Petitioners failed to file WS within 30 days as mandated, but filed within extended period of 90 days - The learned Trial Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay citing deliberate delay - The court emphasized a liberal approach in condoning delay to ensure justice is served. (Paras 13, 21, 23)
(B) Condonation of Delay - The court reiterated that the application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner and should focus on substantial justice rather than technicalities. (Paras 18, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, based in Mumbai, failed to file the WS within the stipulated period, leading to the closure of their right to file it. They later sought condonation of delay, which was initially rejected by the Trial Court.
Findings of Court:
The court set aside the Trial Court's order, allowing the WS to be taken on record upon payment of costs.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the WS was justifiable and if the application for condonation should be entertained.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a liberal approach should be adopted in condoning delays to ensure that cases are decided on merits, not technicalities.
Result: The impugned order was set aside, allowing the WS to be filed upon payment of costs.
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 21.05.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Commercial-06 (South East), Saket Court, New Delhi in CS (COMM) 409/2023, titled as, Rajyesh Kumar Patni vs. Walnut Pictures & Ors.
2. On 03.07.2023, the learned Trial Court issued directions for issuance of summons to the petitioners and the matter was adjourned for 03.10.2023.
3. On 03.10.2023, the attendance of counsel for petitioners stands recorded in the order-sheet of the date.
4. The petitioners did not file the Written Statement [hereinafter “WS”] and therefore, on the next date i.e. 09.11.2023, the right of the petitioners to file the WS was closed in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
5. Petitioners tried to file the WS alongwith supporting affidavit, statement of truth, affidavit of admission/denial and application for condonation of delay on 28.11.2023. After removal of defects marked by the Registry, fresh e-filing was done on 29.11.2023 and the hardcopy of WS was filed in learned Trial Court on 30.11.2023.
6. The respondent took objection that the right of petitioners to file the WS has already been closed, no application for review of order dated 09.11.2023 having been filed, and the application for condonation of delay in filing the WS is not maintainable. However, the learned Trial Court rejected the contention of respondent stating that the application for condonation of delay will also be treated as application for review of order dated 09.11.2023.
7. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Trial Court to entertain the application of petitioners, respondent filed an application for review.
8. Vide order dated 21.05.2024, the learned Trial Court disposed of the review application dated 16.01.2024 filed by the respondent, while taking the view that the application for condonation of delay should not be dismissed only on the technical reason that separate application for review of order closing the right to file the WS has not been moved or prayer for review has not been made in the same application. However, the application of the petitioners under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC was dismissed on the ground that there has been deliberate delay on the part of the petitioners in filing the WS and the intention appears to be to delay the matter as far as possible. The learned Trial Court was of the view that WS was ready on 08.11.2023, but the petitioners have failed to explain as to why they did not try to file the WS through e-filing on 08.11.2023 itself. The relevant paras of the order are extracted as under:-
“27. Ld. Counsel for the defendants has not explained as to why the defendants did not try to file the WS through e-filing on 08.11.2023. Ld. Counsel has also not explained as to why she did not inform the court on 09.11.2023 that the WS was ready. The WS was verified at Mumbai and it might take some time for the hard copy to arrive at Delhi but the e-filing could have been done and the court could have been informed on 09.11.2023 that the WS was ready.
28. Though, the WS was ready on 08.11.2023, the attempt to do efiling was made only on 28.11.2023. There is no explanation as to why it was not done earlier. On 28.11.2023 also the e-filing was defective and it was ultimately rejected on 29.11.2023. After removal of the defects, fresh e-filing was done on 29.11.2023 and the hard copy was filed in the court on 30.11.2023. What could be the reason if not the intention to delay the matter as much as the defendants could. If we take the date of service as 20.08.2023, WS has been filed after 99 days from the date of service. It is stated in the application that the defendants belong to Mumbai and they needed time to engage a counsel at Delhi and to gather the facts. Even if this is accepted, there is no reason for the defendants not moving an applicatio
The court emphasized a liberal approach in condoning delays in filing written statements to ensure justice is served, rather than adhering strictly to technicalities.
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.
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....
(1) – Limitation period – Length of delay is a relevant matter which court must take into consideration while considering whether delay should be condoned or not – While considering plea for condona....
(1) Un-condonable delay - Un-condonable delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner by the Courts. Law of Limitation is substantive and the Rule is to institute the proceedings within the time limit....
The appeal in commercial matters requires strict adherence to timelines under the Commercial Courts Act, and negligence in filing cannot justify delay beyond stipulated periods.
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
