Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1930
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J
Noida Authority – Appellant
Versus
Himalayan Flora And Aroma Private Limited – Respondent
CS (COMM) 589/2021 | I.A. 13987/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anand Mishra, Vandita Nain, Ayushi Rajput
For the Respondents: Anil Mittal, Atul Chauhan, Rachit Mittal, Parish Mishra, Kanishk Raj, Adarsh Srivastava, Kriti Jain
The non-filing of a Statement of Truth along with a pleading in a commercial suit is a curable procedural defect and does not render the filing non-est, unless the filing was made with mala fide intent to circumvent the law of limitation.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 15A - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Filing of written statement without Statement of Truth - Whether non-est or curable defect - Held, non-filing of Statement of Truth is a curable defect and does not render the pleading non-est, unless accompanied by other defects demonstrating mala fide intent to stall limitation.
(B) Procedural Law - Filing of pleadings - Limitation - If a written statement is filed within the limitation period but lacks the Statement of Truth, the defect can be cured even after the expiry of 120 days, as the initial filing is not rendered non-est.
Facts of the case:
Defendant no. 2 filed its written statement along with affidavits of admission and denial within the prescribed limitation period but failed to include the Statement of Truth as required under Order VI Rule 15A of the CPC. The plaintiff objected to the filing, arguing it was non-est, while the defendant sought to place the Statement of Truth on record via an application, contending the omission was a bona fide inadvertent error.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the requirement of the Statement of Truth is procedural. Relying on a Full Bench decision, the court concluded that the non-filing is a curable defect rather than a ground for declaring the pleading non-est, provided the filing was not done with an ulterior motive to bypass limitation.
Issues: Whether the failure to file a Statement of Truth with a written statement in a commercial suit renders the filing 'non-est' and whether such a defect can be cured after the 120-day limit.
Ratio Decidendi: Procedural requirements in the CPC are directory. The absence of a Statement of Truth does not invalidate the filing unless it is shown that the filing was an attempt to stall the limitation period without bona fide intent.
Result: Application allowed; Statement of Truth taken on record.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for condoning procedural omissions in pleadings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. contentions regarding whether non-filing of statement of truth makes a filing non-est. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. interpretation of order vi rule 15a of the cpc as a curable procedural requirement. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. application of the curative principle to specific factual circumstances. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
I.A. 13987/2023 (by defendant no. 2 under Section 151 CPC seeking to place on record the statement of truth in compliance of order dated 13.07.2023)
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant/defendant no.2 (Noida Authority) seeking to place on record the statement of truth in support of written statement filed by the defendant no.2.
2. The facts leading to filing of the present application in brief are that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff praying, inter alia, for decree of declaration, permanent injunction, recovery and damages against the defendants. The summons in the suit were issued by the court vide order dated 16.01.2023. It is not in controversy that the defendant no.2 was served with summons on 27.02.2023 and a written statement was filed by it along with a supporting affidavit as well as affidavit of admission and denial of documents on 28.03.2023. However, the said written statement was not accompanied with the statement of truth in terms of Order VI Rule 15A of CPC, as applicable to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as „Act‟].
3. The order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the learned Joint Registrar reveals that the written statement, affidavit of admission/denial of documents, vakalatnama and reply to the I.A., were filed by the defendant no.2. Likewise, certain documents were also separately filed by the defendant no.2, which were returned under objections. Accordingly, the learned Joint Registrar directed the learned counsel for the defendant no.2 to check-up with the Registry and have the said documents placed on record. The learned Joint Registrar also observed that the learned counsel for defendant no.1 has sought time to file the written statement and affidavit of admission/denial of documents. The matter was accordingly adjourned for completion of pleadings and admission/denial of documents to 13.07.2023.
4. On 13.07.2023, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, for the first time, pointed out that the written statement filed by the defendant no.2 cannot be taken on record as the defendant no.2 has not filed the statement of truth. At this, the learned counsel for defendant no.2/applicant submitted that he will be filing a statement of truth along with an appropriate application. That is how the present application has been filed by the defendant no.2/applicant seeking to place on record the statement of truth.
5. The application has been opposed by the plaintiff/non-applicant.
6. Mr. Rachit Mittal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant no.2/applicant submits that the written statement was filed by the defendant no.2 along with the supporting affidavit, as well as, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents, on 28.03.2023. It is only on account of inadvertent and bona fide mistake that the written statement was not supported by the statement of truth, as required by Order VI Rule 15A of CPC.
7. He submits that such an irregularity was not even pointed out by the Registry of this court and it is only on 13.07.2023, when the matter was listed before the learned Joint Registrar, that the learned counsel for the plaintiff for the first time raised an objection that the statement of truth has not been filed along with the written statement of the defendant no.2. Accordingly, a submission was made on behalf of the applicant/defendant no.2 that the statement of truth shall be filed along with an appropriate application.
8. He submits that the written statement w
