Page 1 of 7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Pronounced on: 29^th September, 2021

+

CM (M) 514/2021, CM APPL. 24668/2021 (by the petitioner

u/S 151 CPC for interim relief)

SMAAASH ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through

Ms. Diya Kapur and Mr. Rohan

Poddar, Advocates

versus

VARSICON ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent

Through

Mr. Kailash Chandra, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

J U D G M E N T

1.

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India against the order dated 1^st February, 2021 passed by the learned

Trial Court in suit bearing CS-DJ-6668 of 2016.

2.

The respondent is the plaintiff who had filed a suit under Order

XXXVII CPC against the petitioner for the recovery of a sum of

Rs.46,44,496/- with interest. The petitioner was granted leave to defend

the said suit. The petitioner thereafter filed a written statement-cum-

counter claim for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as loss of revenue on account

of delay and Rs.42,81,600.65 plus Rs.22,00,000/- as costs and freight

charges.

2021:DHC:3098

Page 2 of 7

3.

The replication and response to the counter claim was filed by the

respondent, whereafter on 29^th July, 2019, the learned Trial Court framed

the following issues:

Subsequently, thereto, the respondent filed an application for framing

of an additional issue. Vide the impugned order dated 1^st February, 2021,

the learned Trial Court allowed the said application and framed an

additional issue to the following effect:

Person? OPD”

2021:DHC:3098

Page 3 of 7

4.

The petitioner is aggrieved by this order and the framing of the

additional issue.

5.

Ms. Diya Kapur, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted

that keeping in view the judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in Anil Kumar Vs. Devender Kumar and others, 2019 SCC Online

Del 8782 and Kawal Sachdeva Vs. Madhu Bala Rana & others, 2013

SCC Online Del 1479, it was not necessary that on every pleading, an

issue should be framed. Learned counsel has further submitted that an

issue could be framed only on material proposition of facts or law and

that unnecessary issues were only delaying tactics and framing of such

issues must be abjured by the court.

6.

Learned counsel placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme

Court in Uday Shankar Triyar Vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and

another, (2006) 1 SCC 75 and United Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar

and others, (1996) 6 SCC 660, has further submitted that the issue of

signing and verification of pleadings were not more than curable

irregularities, if they were not properly carried out. It was further

submitted that though the original written statement-cum-counter claim

filed on behalf of the petitioner had not been signed, but subsequently, the

signed written statement-cum-counter claim had been filed and duly

accepted on record by the learned Trial Court, particularly, in the light of

the order dated 1^st April, 2019, whereby, the learned Trial Court had

affirmed that it had jurisdiction to proceed with the suit. It was the

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the court had

come to the conclusion that the written statement-cum-counter claim had

2021:DHC:3098

Page 4 of 7

been duly signed and verified, there was no purpose at all in framing the

additional issue regarding the competency of the person signing and

verifying the pleadings. Thus, it was submitted that the petition be

allowed and the additional issue framed be struck off.

7.

On the other hand, Mr. Kailash Chandra, learned counsel for the

respondent, has submitted that there was no procedural impropriety

committed by the learned Trial Court in framing the additional issue and

the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was itself not

maintainable. It was further submitted that the reason why the issue was

framed was because as per the own documents of the peti