2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 3417
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Jain, J
RAJESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
AJAY KUMAR @ AJAY SINGH – Respondent
CM(M) 316/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. C.M. Grover, Mr. Kashish Dhawan, Ms. Payal Budhiraja
For the Respondents: Mr. Manish Sindwani
The established legal principle is that the period for filing a written statement in commercial suits is strictly limited to 120 days and cannot be extended once the trial has commenced.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 105 - Time for filing written statement in commercial suits is limited to 120 days, and cannot be extended beyond this period. (Paras 13, 17)
(B) Judicial discretion and extraordinary jurisdiction - When trial is completed, and the matter is ready for final arguments, extraordinary intervention to condone delays is not warranted. (Paras 16, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner seeks recovery of Rs.5,42,449.35 from his estranged son-in-law, who is already pursuing a suit against the petitioner for Rs.8 lacs. The trial has concluded, and the final arguments are pending.
Findings of Court:
The absence of compelling reasons to condone the delay once the trial is complete leads to dismissal of the petition.
Issues: The main issue addressed is the limitation period for filing written statements in commercial suits.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court highlighted that the time-limit for filing written statements is strict and must be adhered to, noting that the trial being over limits any grounds for extraordinary remedy.
Result: The petition is disposed of, and no precedent is set.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. pending commercial recovery suits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. operational delays and procedural actions taken. (Para 4) |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petitioner herein is plaintiff before the learned Trial Court and has filed a commercial suit which seeks recovery of Rs.5,42,449.35/-.
2. The suit is directed against his estranged son-in-law who, has, already, filed a suit against petitioner herein, seeking recovery of Rs.8 lacs.
Such other suit is also pending adjudication.
3. Coming back to the suit filed by petitioner herein, admittedly, the defendant in the abovesaid commercial suit appeared before the learned Trial Court on 28.05.2022.
4. It is, however, pertinent to mention that the Service Report was not clearly indicative of due service upon him and on the basis of the request made by the plaintiff himself, the process was directed to be issued again, through ordinary mode as well as electronic mode.
Signature Not Verified CM(M) 316/2023 1 Digitally Signed
5. Fact, however, remains that on the same date itself i.e. 28.05.2022, the defendant himself appeared in person before the learned Trial Court at 11:30 A.M. and, therefore, the learned Trial Court took up the matter again and copy of the plaint and necessary documents were also supplied to defendant. Importantly, learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant also apprised the learned Trial Court that they were interested in amicable settlement of the matter.
6. Apparently, there is delay of 4 days in filing written statement and according to defendant, the delay had taken place as he had to approach Delhi Legal Services Authority, Shahdara District for seeking legal aid, so that, his case is duly represented before the learned Trial Court.
7. According to him, there was delay in appointment of legal aid counsel and the initially appointed legal aid counsel was changed as he had not done anything and, therefore, delay had occasioned.
8. When the defendant moved application seeking condonation in submitting such written statement, learned Trial Court, appreciating the abovesaid hardship expressed by the defendant, has condoned the delay.
9. Such order dated 07.01.2023 is under challenge.
10. It also needs to be highlighted that when the present petition was, earlier, taken up by this Court on 20.02.2024, there was no appearance from the side of the petitioner/plaintiff and observing that perhaps the petitioner was not interested in pursuing the present petition, the same was dismissed-
in-default.
11. An application for restoration was filed by the plaintiff, which was, eventually, allowed by this Court on 07.05.2025.
12. This Court has heard arguments from learned counsel for both the Signature Not Verified CM(M) 316/2023 2 Digitally Signed sides.
13. There is no scope of any debate or discussion with respect to the settled legal position that the time-period for filing written statement in a commercial suit cannot be extended beyond the maximum outer permissible limit of 120 days. Reference in this regard be made, in particular, to SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited vs. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited: (2019) 12 SCC 2010.
14. There is, however, one very significant aspect of the case which cannot be sidelined and disregarded.
15. The trial of the suit, in the interregnum, is already over and the case is now fixed for hearing of final arguments by the learned Trial Court.
16. In such a peculiar situation when the trial is already complete and the learned Trial Court is all set to hear final arguments, this Court does not feel any compelling reason to invoke its extra-ordinary jurisdiction.
17. Naturally, in case, suit is decreed in favour of the petitioner, his grievance would cease to exist. In case, such suit is, eventually, dismissed by the learned Trial Court and the plaintiff is compelled to file any appeal, this Court gives him liberty to challenge the order, which is impugned before this Court, by setting forth the same as a groun