$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 15^th May, 2025 + CM(M) 905/2025 & CM APPL. 29401-29402/2025 SEEMA RANI JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Alok Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S B Chaturvedi, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Mr. Varun Maheshwari and Mr. Manan Joshi, Advocates.

versus M/S CANADIAN SPECIALITY VINYLS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Raveesh Thukral, Adv CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Petitioner herein is defending a suit which is commercial in nature and is aggrieved by order dated 16.04.2025 whereby her amended written statement has been refused to be taken on record and, simultaneously, one application moved by defendant under Order XI Rule 14 read with Section

151 CPC has also been dismissed.

2. Mr. Alok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, on instructions, submits that as far as the prayer in context of dismissing of application moved under Order XI Rule 14 CPC is concerned, the same is not pressed and, therefore, the relief in the present petition is, now, merely, Signature Not Verified CM(M) 905/2025 1 Digitally Signed restricted to the effect that the amended written statement may be permitted to be taken on record.

3. The suit in question was filed on 23.04.2019 and written statement was filed on 06.05.2023.

4. It is not disputed that the abovesaid filing of written statement was within the permissible outer limit and in terms of proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes.

5. However, thereafter, the petitioner sought amendment in its plaint and amendment was allowed on 29.11.2024. Consequent to such amendment being allowed, the amended plaint was placed on record by the plaintiff on

18.12.2024.

6. Undoubtedly, the above was second request coming from the side of the plaintiff whereby it was seeking amendment in the plaint.

7. Be that as it may, the learned Trial Court, while taking the amended plaint on record, directed the defendant to file amended written statement by next date of hearing i.e.17.01.2025.

8. Thereby, a period of around of 30 days was given to the defendant to file written statement.

9. The amended written statement was, admittedly, not filed within the abovesaid time-frame and an application was filed on 28.02.2025, seeking extension of time. The defendant also moved an application seeking condonation of delay in submitting such amended written statement and by virtue of impugned order dated 16.04.2025, the learned Trial Court has dismissed such application seeking condonation of delay.

10. The learned Trial Court also relied upon Order VI Rule 18 CPC which reads as under:-

Signature Not Verified CM(M) 905/2025 2 Digitally Signed “18. Failure to amend after Order.—If a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the time limited for that purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen days from the date of the order, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such limited time as aforesaid or of such fourteen days, as the case may be, unless the time is extended by the Court.]”

11. However, the abovesaid rule would come into play in favour of the party who seeks an order for leave to amend the pleadings. In the case in hand, the leave was rather sought by her adversary and the application moved by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed and, resultantly, there was a direction to defendant to file amended written statement.

12. The Court has also seen order dated 29.11.2024 whereby the plaintiff was permitted to amend the suit.

13. The suit was seeking recovery of sum of Rs. 38,07,100/- and the plaintiff, in view of the amended ledger, restricted its claim against the sole defendant to Rs. 28,28,784/- . It also needs to be highlighted that earlier the suit was filed against three defendants but defendant No.2 and 3 were also deleted from the array of the parties.

14. Obviously, the amendment was not wholesome in nature, but fa