CM(M) 306/2022

Page 1 of 6

$~63(Appellate Side-List of 2022)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM (M) 306/2022, CM APPL. 16699/2022 & CM APPL.

16700/2022

DEEPAK

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Chirag Arora, Ms. Sumati

Sharma & Mr. Swalhit Sharma,

Advs. with petitioner in person

versus

RAMESH SETHI

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Sudhindra Tripathi & Mr.

Garvil Singh, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT (O R A L)

%

08.04.2022

1.

Learned Counsel for the parties have argued the matter and are

agreeable to the matter being disposed of at this stage.

2.

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 16^th November,

2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge (“the learned CJ”), whereby

the right of the petitioner to lead his evidence, as the defendant before

the learned CJ in CS 9739/2016, was closed.

3.

The petitioner moved an application under Section 151 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for modification of the order

dated 16^th November, 2021, and for permitting the filing of defence

evidence. That application was dismissed vide order dated 05^th

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001605

CM(M) 306/2022

Page 2 of 6

January, 2022. A further application, seeking review of the order dated

05^th January, 2022, was also dismissed by the learned CJ vide order

dated 11^th March, 2022.

4.

This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

assails all the three orders, i.e. the orders passed on 16^th November,

2021, 5^th January, 2022 and 11^th March, 2022.

5.

The issue in controversy being narrow, it is not necessary to

allude to the specifics of the dispute between the parties. Suffice it to

state that, by order dated 27^th February, 2020, the petitioner was

directed to file its defence evidence in the suit, on or before 22^nd April,

2020. I may note, here, that Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the

respondent, has sought to contend that the petitioner had been remiss

on earlier occasions. That, in my view, may not be of particular

significance, especially in view of the law laid down by the Supreme

Court in State Bank of India vs. Chandra Govindji¹, in which case

the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that, where the refusal of the Court

below to grant adjournment on a particular date was under challenge,

adjournments granted earlier were irrelevant, as there was a

presumption that they were granted for good reason.

6.

Before 22^nd April, 2020, the COVID-2019 pandemic had struck

the country. Given the constraints faced by litigants, the Supreme

Court, on 23^rd March, 2020, directed, in Cognizance for Extension of

1 (2000) 8 SCC 532

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001605

CM(M) 306/2022

Page 3 of 6

Limitation, In Re², that periods of limitation in all proceedings,

irrespective of whether the limitation was prescribed under general or

special laws, and irrespective of whether delay was, or was not,

condonable would stand extended w.e.f. 15^th March, 2020, till further

orders to be passed by the Supreme Court. Till the date on which the

right of the petitioner to lead defence evidence was closed i.e. till 16^th

November, 2021, it is not in dispute that this order continued to

remain in force.

7.

Mr. Tripathi has drawn my attention to the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Plywood Product

Pvt. Ltd.³. In that case, the Supreme Court was dealing with a

situation in which the normal period of limitation for moving the

Court had expired prior to 15^th March, 2020, and the litigant was

seeking the benefit of the order dated 23^rd March, 2020, in Cognisance

for Extension of Limitation², on the ground that the condonable

period of limitation had expired after 15^th March, 2020. The Supreme

Court turned down the request, opining that the benefit of its order

dated 23^rd March, 2020, as available only to vigilant litigants and

would not in any ca