$-14

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CS(COMM) 729/2025, I.A. 17477/2025, I.A. 23786/2025, I.A.

29259/2025, I.A. 921/2026

M/S LMC COMPUTERS .....Plaintiff

Through: Mr. Neeraj Grover, Ms. Meenakshi

Ogra, Mr. Tarun Khurana, Mr. Vishnu Gambhir, Mr. Rajat Sabu and Mr.

Anubhav Gupta, Advocates.

versus

ITHINK APPS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. .....Defendants

Through: Mr. Shailen Bhatia, Ms. Deeksha Gulati

and Ms. Simran Kaur, Advocates for

D-1 and 2. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R

% 14.01.2026

I.A. 29259/2025 (Delay)

1. This is an application under Chapter VII Rule 5 of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff seeking condonation of delay in

filing the replication.

2. Mr. Neeraj Grover, learned counsel for plaintiff submits that as per Rule 5 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 2018”), the time prescribed to file a replication is within 30 days of the receipt of the written statement. The period is extendable by another 15 days at the discretion of the Court, but not

thereafter.

3. Mr. Grover submits that on 18.09.2025, the written statement was taken on record by an order of the Joint Registrar (Judicial) condoning the delay,

which had occurred in filing the written statement. He submits that the time limit, according to him, for filing the replication to the written statement would commence from 19.09.2025 and a 30 days’ period would expire on 18.10.2025. He submits that calculating 15 days extendable time provided under Rule 5, the extension would expire on 02.11.2025. He states that 02.11.2025 was a Sunday and therefore, on the next working day, i.e., 03.11.2025, the replication was indeed filed.

4. By referring to Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, he submits that if the Court or the Office concerned is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time, if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the Court or Office is open. Accordingly, he submits that the extended time having expired on 02.11.2025, which was Sunday, the act of filing of the replication on 03.11.2025, though being the 46^th day, would, fall within the computation, reckoned as per Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

5. That apart, he also relies upon Rule 6 of Chapter I of the Rules, 2018 to submit that Rule 6 reiterates the position of law as stated in Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

6. However, Mr. Grover does admit that so far as the service of the replication is concerned, the plaintiff had not served the same on the defendant in terms of Rule 5 and it is only after a few days when the Registry raised an objection of non-service, that the copy of the replication was furnished to the defendant on 10.11.2025.

7. He submits that the delay in filing the replication within 15 days’ extended period beyond the prescribed 30 days’ period occurred on account of extensive pleadings in the written statement alongwith the fact that there are a number of litigations inter se the parties, which required time to collate facts. He submits that in view of the above, the rigor of the replication not being accepted, unless it is served upon the defendants may not be construed strictly in the present case.

8. Mr. Shailen Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the defendant vehemently opposes the present application. He submits that no explanation is forthcoming from the plaintiff as to why the replication was not served upon them despite the fact that an e-mail was issued to the plaintiff on 05.11.2025. A copy of the e-mail has been handed over to the bench and taken on record. He relies upon the contents of the said e-mail, which is reproduced hereunder:

“Ma'am, We act on behalf of the Defendant No. 1 and 2.

We note that you have filed Replication and certain documents vide Diar