Delay in filing for leave to defend in summary proceedings is not condoned without sufficient cause, particularly where negligence is evident.

JUDGMENT :

MINI PUSHKARNA, J.

I.A. 24120/2025

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the defendants under Order XXXVII Rule 3(7) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking condonation of delay in filing application for leave to defend, in the present summary suit.

2. There is a delay of 49 days in filing the application seeking leave to defend, which has been explained by the defendants in the following manner:

“xxx xxx xxx

5. That it is a respectful submission that there has been a delay of 49 days in filing the Application seeking Leave to Defend. It is submitted that such delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and the Defendants required time to cull out the relevant details and documents so as to controvert the falsehoods and half-truths being perpetuated by the Plaintiffs. The Defendants most humbly crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to read the contents of the accompanying the Application seeking Leave to Defend for the purposes of the present Application, and the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid prolixity.

6. That it is most humbly submitted that the authorized representative of the Defendants was unable to devote uninterrupted and continuous time on account of his poor health conditions which rendered him unable to coordinate and instruct Counsel for the timely preparation and filing of the Application seeking Leave to Defend. Further, contents of the Plaint along with its documents comprised extensive commercial records, spanning several years, requiring collation, and scrutiny. The process of reconstructing material facts and tracing historical payments, negotiations, and contracts was arduous and consumed considerable time.

7. That further, different persons and employees including those who were earlier involved in maintaining the records had to be consulted which further consumed time. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs have deliberately withheld and suppressed material facts that are essential for a fair adjudication of the present dispute. Crucial discussions and negotiations evidenced through correspondence exchanged between the parties during previous years, particularly those documenting then ongoing discussions on account reconciliation, quality and price negotiations, and the conduct of the parties, have not been disclosed with the Plaint. These documents are of fundamental importance, as they would reveal that the obligations claimed by the Plaintiffs were not unconditional or absolute, but always subject to contemporaneous negotiations and mutual adjustments. By suppressing these records, the Plaintiffs seek to present a distorted narrative, depriving this Hon'ble Court of the true sequence of events and commercial understanding between the parties.

8. That the Defendants were compelled to undertake an exhaustive search of physical and electronic records, which dated back several years, in order to trace the full history of the commercial relationship. The necessity to retrieve these communications, spanning emails, invoices, payment advices etc. was exacerbated by the Plaintiffs' selective disclosure and intentional avoidance of reference to such exchanges. Had the Plaintiffs placed the entirety of the correspondence and transactional documents on record, much of the present controversy could have been resolved. The suppression of these facts by the Plaintiffs is not only a breach of the Plaintiffs' duty to approach this Court with clean hands, but also amounts to an abuse