The period for filing a replication in response to a belated written statement starts only when the statement is formally taken on record, not from service date.

2. The Plaintiffs have filed the present Suit seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered Patent No. 426553, damages, rendition of accounts and delivery up. The present Suit was listed for the first time before this Court on 30.04.2024 and this Court vide order dated 30.04.2024 granted an ad- interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs restraining the Defendant from selling, distributing or promoting, directly or indirectly in any manner, the Defendant’s product ‘NETUPIN’ or any other medicinal or pharmaceutical product, which infringes the Plaintiffs’ Patent. On 30.04.2024, the Plaint was registered as a Suit and the Summons were issued, which were served upon the Defendant on 21.05.2024.

3. The Defendant, thereafter, served and filed its Written Statement on 16.08.2024 vide Diary No. 3084263/2024. By order dated 23.08.2024, the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) allowed the Defendant’s application for condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement and directed that the Written Statement be taken on record, subject to payment of costs of ?3,000/-.

4. The Plaintiffs, thereafter, filed their Replication on 05.10.2024 along with the present Application stating that the Written Statement filed by the Defendant was taken on record on 23.08.2024 and, accordingly, 30 days period for filing the Replication started from that date and ended on 22.09.2024 and 45 days period i.e., the maximum statutorily permissible time limit was to end on 07.10.2024 before which the Plaintiffs have filed the Replication on 05.10.2024.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS:

5. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that:

5.1. The Written Statement filed by the Defendant in the present Suit did not automatically come on record, but had to be taken on record subject to condoning the delay in filing the Written Statement. The delay in filing the Written Statement was condoned on 23.08.2024 and, thereafter, the Written Statement was taken on record on 23.08.2024 subject to payment of costs of ?3000/- pursuant to the order passed by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial). In fact, the costs imposed vide order dated 23.08.2024 were paid by the Defendant on 30.08.2024.

5.2. Hence, the Replication filed by the Plaintiffs on 05.10.2024 was within the within the maximum statutorily permissible limit of 45 days ending on 07.10.2024 to be calculated from 23.08.2024 on the date when the Written Statement was taken on record.

5.3. The time to file a replication commences once the written statement of the defendant is taken on record when the written statement is filed along with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement, and not from the date of its service, as there would be no requirement for the plaintiff to file a replication in the event that the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement is not allowed and the written statement is not taken on record.

5.4. Rule 5 of Chapter VII of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (“DHC Rules”) is applicable to cases where the defendant has filed its written statement within the statutorily granted period of 30 days and when the written statement does not have to be accompanied with an application seeking condonation of delay for it to be taken on record. In the present case, the Defendant filed its Written Statement 57 days beyond the 30 days statutorily prescribed period. Therefore, the period for filing the Replication would have commenced only on 23.08.2024, when the delay in filing the Written Stateme