$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 644/2022 & I.A. 15216/2022 PARVIOM TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Tuhin Batra, Advocate.

versus KARTHIK DEVRAJ AND OTHERS .....Defendants Through: Mr. K.V. Sriwas Narayanan & Mr.

K.V. Vibu Prasad, Advocates for Defendant No.1.

Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad B F & Mr. Shubham Arun, Advocates for Defendant No.2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R

% 03.12.2025 I.A. 15287/2025

1. This is an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for condonation of delay in filing the Replication to the Written Statement filed on behalf of Defendant No. 1.

2. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff has submitted that the Written Statement on behalf of Defendant No. 1 was directed to be taken on record vide order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the learned Joint Registrar subject to deposit of costs of ₹3,000/- by Defendant No. 1 within a period of four weeks. As per the said order, the Plaintiff’s time to file Replication commenced from 11.03.2025 being the date for compliance with the cost condition. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff that during the intervening period, the Plaintiff has been in process of preparing a detailed and structured reply addressing the factual averments and legal contentions raised by 3. In view of the same, there was a short delay in filing the Replication to theWrittenStatementfiledbyDefendantNo.1.Furtherdelaywasalsocaused duetointernalapprovalandcoordinationbetweentheofficialsofthePlaintiff. 4. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the delay in filing the Replication may be condoned as the same was beyond the control of the Plaintiff. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff has a strong case on merits and substantial prejudice would be caused to the Plaintiff, if the delay is not condoned.

5. The learned Counsel for Defendant No. 1 submits that the delay of 26 days is beyond the maximum period of 45 days and this Court can only condone the delay so long as the total time taken to file Replication does not exceed the outer limit of 45 days after condoning the delay.

6. The learned Counsel for Defendant No. 1 relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ram Swarup Lugani & Anr. v. Nirmal Lugani & Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1353, holding that the Court does not havepowertocondonethedelayinfilingtheReplicationbeyondfifteendays. 7. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1, in view of the decision of this Court in Ram Swarup Lugani (supra), it is not permissible for this Court to condone the period of delay beyond the maximum period of 45 days from the dateonwhichtheWrittenStatementistakenonrecord.Asinthepresentcase, the delay of 26 days sought to be condoned is beyond the maximum period of

45 days, this Court does not have power to condone the same.

8. Accordingly, the present Application is dismissed with liberty to the Plaintiff to raise the pleas, which are consistent with the Plaint and are during the trial.

9. The Application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

CS(COMM) 644/2022 & I.A. 15216/2022

10. List before the learned Joint Registrar for Admission / Denial of the documents and marking of Exhibits on 04.02.2026.

11. List before the Court for framing of issues after the completion of pleadings and marking of Exhibits.

TEJAS KARIA, J DECEMBER 3, 2025/ ‘A’