$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 123/2025 ANANDAM SWEETS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Shruti Manchanda, Advocate versus HALDIRAM SNACKS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Neeraj Grover, Mr. Kashish Sethi and Ms. Arpita Mishra, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R

% 03.02.2026 I.A. 21982/2025 (Delay)

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the replication to the written statement of the defendants with a further prayer that the same be taken on record.

2. Ms. Shruti Manchanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that the written statement was served upon the plaintiff on 30.06.2025, which itself was filed after a delay of about 39 days, which was condoned by the Joint Registrar vide order dated 03.07.2025. She further submits 30 days’ period to file replication commence from 03.07.2025 and would have concluded on 02.08.2025. Since the signing authority, Mr. Sumit Khandelwal was unwell during the period and suffering from various medical ailments, the plaintiff was constrained to authorise another person to sign and verify the pleadings in the replication. She submits that this exercise took almost 11 days which caused the delay in filing the replication. She submits that the delay caused is bonafide and the replication be taken on record since it has been filed within the 15 days’ extended period as per Rule 5 of Chapter VII of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “Original Side Rules”).

3. Opposing the said application, Mr. Neeraj Gover, learned counsel appearing for the defendants, submits that firstly though the contention has been raised that the authorized signatory was unwell, no medical document has been annexed to the said application rendering the said submission unsustainable. Secondly, he submits that in terms of Rule 5 of Chapter VII of Original Side Rules, a copy of the replication was to be mandatorily served upon defendant, failure whereof, would entail the said replication unacceptable. He submits that admittedly the copy of replication was served upon the defendant on 29.08.2025, which is clearly beyond 45 days from the date when the written statement was taken on record i.e. 03.07.2025. He also submits that peculiarly the date of filing mentioned in the replication is 14.08.2025, however, the affidavit in support thereof indicates that it was attested on 28.08.2025. On that basis, he submits that the replication could be termed as an incomplete pleading which could not have been filed or taken on record as on 14.08.2025.

4. Furthermore, he relies on the judgment of the Full Bench in FAO(OS)(COMM) 70/2024 titled Pragati Construction Consultants vs. Union of India & Anr. dated 07.02.2025 to submit that this Court ought to see not only the fatal defect of not having an attested affidavit as on 14.08.2025 but also other attending defects, if any, which were objected to by the Registry for filing of the replication and if any such further objections are found to be relevant, then to consider the filing of replication as non-est. He submits that the said facts have been concealed by the plaintiff. On that count, he submits that the replication ought not to be taken on record.

5. So far as the issue of non-filing of the medical document is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the same would not prejudice the defendant inasmuch as, the delay of 11 days is within the 15 days extension period and could be condoned even without such reason. The issue of non-service of the replication to the defendant in terms of Rule 5 Chapter VII of Original Side Rules is concerned, this Court vide order dated 14.01.2026 passed in CS(COMM) 729/2025 titled M/s. LMC Computers vs. iThink Apps Private Limited & Ors. has held that second part of Rule 5 of Chapter VII of the Original Side Rules is directory and non-service of replication upon counsel for defend