High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed on behalf of the defendant’s seeking condonation of delay in filing of their written statements. The present summary suit has been filed under Order XXXVII of the CPC seeking recovery of Rs.3,25,56,496/- along with future and pendente lite interest.
Brief Facts:
Vide judgment dated 3rd August, 2018, the Court dismissed the application of the defendants for grant of leave to defend and the suit was decreed. The said judgment was challenged by the defendants before a Division Bench of this Court, whereby vide judgment dated 9th December, 2019, the defendants were granted conditional leave to defend. The condition was for the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs.3,25,56,496/- within eight weeks from the said date. Before the expiry of the said period of eight weeks, the defendants filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, challenging the judgment dated 9th December, 2019 to the extent it required the deposit of the aforesaid amount by the defendants.
Plaintiff’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the Division Bench order did not give the defendants eight weeks’ time to file the written statements. Time of eight weeks was only given to deposit the aforesaid amount. Therefore, there was no reason why the written statements could not be filed by the defendants before the aforesaid period. It was submitted that no valid reasons have been given by the defendants in their present applications for seeking condonation of delay in filing of the written statements. It was submitted that if the period for filing the written statements has to be counted from 9th December, 2019, the condonable period stood expired before 15th March, 2020 i.e., prior to the date from which exclusion was ordered by the Supreme Court.
Defendant’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the defendant submitted that the limitation period for filing the written statements would commence from 31st January, 2020, when the Supreme Court passed the aforesaid order. Therefore, the thirty days’ period for filing the written statements would have expired on 1st March, 2020 and before the condonable period of further sixty days expired, the Supreme Court order dated 23rd March, 2020 came into effect, whereby it was observed that the period with effect from 15th March, 2020 has to be excluded for the purposes of counting limitation. It was submitted that the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court was further clarified in the order dated 8th March, 2021 to include within the ambit of the excluded period the outer limit within which a Tribunal or Court could condone delay.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that in view of the dismissal of the leave to defend applications by the Single Judge, no written statements could be filed on behalf of the defendants. Conditional leave was granted to the defendants by the Division Bench, subject to the defendants depositing the sum within eight weeks. Once again, the right of the defendants to file written statements would arise upon depositing the aforesaid amount, failing which filing of written statement would have been an exercise in futility.
HC stated that even if it is assumed that the period for filing the written statements has to be counted from the date of the Division Bench order dated 9th December, 2019, the Court has discretion to condone the aforesaid delay if just a sufficient cause is provided by the defendants. This is not a commercial suit where there is no discretion given to the Court to condone the delay beyond the maximum prescribed condonable period. Valid reasons have been given by the defendants for condoning the delay in filing the written statements.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “In any event, no prejudice shall be caused to the defendants if the written statements are allowed to be taken on record as the proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court in relation to the leave to defend application filed on behalf of the defendants. Accordingly, subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- by each of the defendants to the plaintiff, the written statements are allowed to be taken on record.”
Case Title: Deepayan Mohanty v. Cargill India Pvt Ltd & Ors
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
Citation: CS(OS) 1157/2014
Decided on: 29th March 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
