Smt Kamlesh And Ors vs Sudhir Sharma
2022 Latest Caselaw 3109 Del

                                       Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005175
                 $~13 (Appellate)
                 *        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                 +        CM(M) 971/2022
                          SMT KAMLESH AND ORS                                 ..... Petitioners
                                      Through:                 Mr. Satyajit Kumar Singh, Adv.

                                                versus

                          SUDHIR SHARMA                                    ..... Respondent
                                      Through:                 Mr. Pradeep Sehrawat, Adv.

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
                                            O R D E R (ORAL)

% 24.11.2022

1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 19th April 2022, passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge ("the learned ASC") in CS SCJ 1176/2019 (Sudhir Sharma v. Suraj Pal Sharma).

2. By the said order, the learned ASCJ has rejected an application filed by the petitioners, who are Defendants 2 to 4 in the suit, under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, to take the written statement on record.

3. The issue stands squarely covered by the order/judgment dated 10th January 2022 passed by the supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) 3/20201 read with order dated 4th January 2022 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) 17298/2022 (Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Stanford

(2022) 3 SCC 117 Signature Not Verified

By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:28.11.2022 12:55:01 Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005175 Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.2) as well as the judgments in Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne v Pyrotek India Private Limited3 and Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd4.

4. The effect of these decisions has been considered by this Court in its decision in Anita Chhabra v. Surender Kumar5, paras 12 to 15 of which may be reproduced thus:

"12. Consequent on the infliction, on the country and, indeed, the world, of the COVID-19 pandemic and its adverse effect on work in Courts all over India, the Supreme Court, as is well known, took suo moto cognizance of the situation, and passed various orders, extending the period of limitation available for filing petitions, appeals and applications before judicial fora by various lengths of time. The last such order was passed on 10th January 2022, in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) 3/20201, in which it was clarified thus:

"5.4. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings."

(Emphasis supplied)"

13. The aforesaid position was further recognized by the Supreme Court in its order dated 4th January 2022 in Centaur Pharmaceuticals2, which read thus:

"Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, we are of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has not committed any error in extending the period of limitation in filing the written statement and consequently taking on record the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent-original defendant.

MANU/SCOR/03428/2022

MANU/SCOR/50600/2022

(2022) 5 SCC 112

MANU/DE/3662/2022 Signature Not Verified

By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:28.11.2022 12:55:01 Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005175 Even as held by this Court in the subsequent orders even the period of limitation which could have been extended and/or condoned by the Tribunal/Court is excluded and/or extended even up to 07.10.2021.

In that view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Hence, the Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed. Consequent upon the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions, the interim order passed by this Court stands vacated.

Pending applications stand disposed of.

(Emphasis supplied)"

14. In line with the aforesaid two orders, the Supreme Court held, in Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne3 and Prakash Corporates4 that the effect of operation of the aforesaid orders passed by the Supreme Court was that the statutory periods of limitation, prescribed under any statute or law applicable for the time being in force, stood extended till 28th February 2022. The period from 15th March 2020 till 28th February 2022, therefore, stands excluded, by operation of the orders passed by the Supreme Court, for the purposes of limitation, for filing any appeal, application, petition or other legal proceeding. The effect of such exclusion has been underscored, in para 28 of the report in Prakash Corporates4, which holds that "the excluded period, as a necessary consequence results in enlargement of time, over and above the period prescribed"

15. In this context, I may observe that there was, at one point of time, a prevalent view, based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Plywood Products (P) Ltd6, that the benefit of the order passed by the Supreme Court would be available only where the normal period of limitation, for filing of a proceeding expired after 15th March 2020. It would not, therefore, be available where the normal period of limitation expired before 15th March 2020 and it was only the condonable period of limitation which expired after 15th March 2020. That view, however, no longer holds the field in view of the later orders passed by the Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) 3/20201, based on which the Supreme Court has held, in Centaur Pharmaceuticals2 that, even where the extended period of limitation condonable period of limitation expired after 15th March 2020, the litigant would be entitled to the benefit of extension of time as made available by the

( 2021 ) 2 SCC 317 Signature Not Verified

By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:28.11.2022 12:55:01 Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005175 orders passed by the Supreme Court."

5. Applying the law enunciated in the aforesaid passages, as the summons in the suit were received by the petitioners on 28th February 2020, even the normal period of limitation for filing written statement expired after 15th March 2020. By operation of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) 3/20201 therefore, the normal period of limitation for filing written statement stood extended till 28th February 2022. As the written statement was filed on 24th July 2021, it could not be said to have been filed belatedly, and had to be treated as having been filed within the normal period of limitation available therefor.

6. Resultantly, the impugned order, which holds that the written statement of the petitioners was filed beyond time and accordingly directs it to be struck off cannot sustain in law.

7. It is accordingly quashed and set aside.

8. The written statement filed by the petitioners, as Defendants 2 to 4 in the suit, is directed to be taken on record.

9. This petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

NOVEMBER 24, 2022 dsn

Signature Not Verified

By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:28.11.2022 12:55:01