$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 922/2024 M/S BTW INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Aditya Chopra, Advocate.

versus M/S BITTOO CHAAT WALA .....Defendant Through: Mr. Siddharth Chaudhary, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

O R D E R

% 23.01.2026 I.A. 20962/2025

1. This application is filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 79 days in filing the replication to the written statement filed by the Defendant.

2. It is an admitted case in the application that copy of the written statement along with affidavit of admission/denial was received by the Plaintiffs on 21.11.2024 and replication was filed on 10.03.2025. Hence there is a delay of 79 days in filing the replication. Plaintiffs assert that the delay occurred owing to the ill-health of their counsel.

3. It needs no reiteration that Rule 5 of Chapter VII of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 provides that replication shall be filed by the Plaintiff within 30 days of receipt of written statement and delay up to 15 days can be condoned if Court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause which prevented the Plaintiff from filing the replication within 30 days or for exceptional or unavoidable reasons. In this regard I may allude to the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Ram Sarup Lugani and Another v. Nirmal Lugani and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1353, relevant passages from which are as under:-

“21. A conspectus of the decisions referred to above leaves no manner of doubt that where ever the phrase “but not thereafter” has been used in a provision for setting a deadline, the intention of the legislature is to treat the same as a preemptory provision. Thus, if Rule 15 of the DHC Rules mandates filing of a replication within a period of 30 days reckoned from the date of receipt of the written statement, with an additional period of 15 days provided and that too only if the court is satisfied that the plaintiff has been able to demonstrate that it was prevented to do so by sufficient cause or for exceptional and unavoidable reasons, can the time for filing the replication be extended for a further period not exceeding 15 days in any event, with costs imposed on the plaintiff. The critical phrase “but not thereafter” used in Rule 15 must be understood to mean that even the court cannot extend the period for filing the replication beyond the outer limit of 45 days provided in the DHC Rules. Upon expiry of the said period, the plaintiff's right to file the replication would stand extinguished. Any other meaning sought to be bestowed on the above provision, would make the words “but not thereafter”, inconsequential.

xxx xxx xxx

31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that in case of any inconsistency, the provisions of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 will prevail over the Civil Procedure Code. The inherent powers contemplated in Rule 16 are not to be exercised to overcome the period of limitation expressly prescribed in Rule 5 for filing the replication. Nor can Rule 5 be circumvented by invoking any other provision or even the inherent powers of the court, contrary to the scheme of the Rules. The phrase, “but not thereafter” used in Rule 5 makes it crystal clear that the Rule is mandatory in nature and the court cannot permit the replication to be taken on the record after the plaintiff has exhausted the maximum prescribed period of 45 days. Any other interpretation will result in causing violence to the DHC Rules.

32. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order whereby the Chamber Appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs was dismissed. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed as meritless, along with the pending applications.”

4. Accordingly, the delay beyond 45 days cannot be condoned and the application is dismissed.

CS(COMM) 922/2024 and I.A. 42867/2024

5. List for further proce