$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 384/2021, I.A. 10462/2021, I.A. 16612/2023 & O.A.

172/2025 YONEX CO., LTD. & ORS. .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Shubham Dayma, Advocate.

versus SUMIT GIRDHAR & ANR. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Gaurav Kohli, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R

% 19.02.2026

1. By way of the present Chamber Appeal, the appellant/defendant no.1 assails the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Joint Registrar (Judicial), whereby the application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the written statement was rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the defendant no.1 was served with the summons of the suit on 08.09.2021. He also states that the written statement was filed on 03.01.2022, to which there is no denial by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. It is also not denied by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the filing of the written statement on 03.01.2022 by the defendant, though beyond the 30 days’ period as stipulated under order VIII Rule 1A was still within the outer limit of 120 days as provided therein.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the written statement which was filed on 03.01.2022 was returned to the defendant for removal of defects, by the Registry. He fairly admits that the original written statement filed on 03.01.2022 was never re-filed after removing objections. However, on 24.03.2022 a fresh written statement was filed on behalf of the appellant/defendant no.1. He also submits that the second written statement was also returned to the defendant no.1 on account of certain defects which were to be cured by defendant no.1.

4. He fairly admits that the defects in the said second written statement were not cured or removed and the said pleading was never re-filed. He submits that finally the written statement on behalf of the defendant no.1 was again filed on 19.07.2022, which too was returned on account of certain defects, however, the same were cured and re-filed whereafter no further defects were marked by the Registry.

5. Learned counsel submits that it is partly on account of the fact that the country was reeling under the Covid-19 pandemic that the aforesaid lapses occurred. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto petition (C) 3/2020, whereby the Supreme Court in the order dated 10.01.2022 had passed directions that the period between 15.03.2020 till

28.02.2022 would stand excluded for the purpose of limitation.

6. He submits that, further to the aforesaid direction, a modification was also issued by the Supreme Court in the order dated 10.01.2022 in the same Suo Moto petition, whereby the Supreme Court extended the 90 day period from 01.03.2022 to 30.05.2022. He states that the third written statement, which was filed on 19.07.2022 may be considered to be in continuation of the written statement which was filed on 03.01.2022 and, accordingly, the delay in re-filing be condoned. He submits that the Joint Registrar has overlooked the directions passed by the Supreme Court and incorrectly applied the said law.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff vehemently opposes the aforesaid submissions.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant no.1.

9. This is for the reason that the concept of filing fresh written statements every time after the previous written statement is returned under objection, is alien to the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Moreover, the benefit of continuity of the first written statement having been filed on 03.01.2022 could only arise once the original written statement, after removing defects, was re-filed.

Clearly, that is not even the case of the appellant/defendant no.1.

10. Learned counsel had drawn attention of this Court to page 18 of the present Chamber Appeal, which is an extract of the case