Delhi High Court
Adlec Power Pvt. Ltd. vs Apex Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 14 October, 2022
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004358
$~1 (Appellate)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 1049/2022 and CM 43037/2022
ADLEC POWER PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Dhar, Adv.
versus
APEX HOMES PVT. LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. P.M. Aggarwal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
% J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
14.10.2022
1. The order dated 7th September 2022, passed by the learned
Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in CS DJ 219/2017
(Adlec Power Pvt Ltd v. Apex Homes Pvt Ltd), under challenge in the
present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, closes
the right of the petitioner, as the plaintiff in the suit, to lead PE
(plaintiff evidence).
2. The sequence of dates, in the aforesaid context, commences
from 29th January 2020, when an application filed by the respondents,
as the defendants in the suit, under Order VIII Rule 101 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), was rejected. The learned ADJ directed
the matter to be adjourned to 27th May 2020 for recording of PE.
10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court. - Where any party
from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time
permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make
such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be
drawn up.
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:19.10.2022
13:05:38
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004358
3. In the interregnum, COVID-19 intervened, and functioning of
the Courts was compromised from 27th May 2020 till 23rd March
2021.
4. On 23rd March 2021, the petitioner filed applications before the
learned ADJ for change of the petitioner and substitution of its
Authorized Representative, as the petitioner had, vide order dated 9th
August 2019, passed by the learned Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai
merged with M/s. Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt Ltd
("Novateur").
5. Said applications were allowed on 8th March 2022, and the
petitioner was directed to lead PE.
6. Before the next date of hearing, the petitioner changed Counsel,
as a result of which the affidavit of PW-1, the sole witness whose
evidence the petitioner sought to lead, was not filed.
7. This resulted in the passing of the impugned order by the
learned ADJ on 7th September 2022, closing the petitioner's right to
lead PE.
8. Though the petitioner cannot satisfactorily explain the entire
period of delay from 27th May 2020 till 7th September 2022, or why it
took the petitioner over a year and a half from the merger with
Novateur to apply to the learned ADJ in that regard, nonetheless,
given the fact that, for close on two years functioning of Courts was
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:19.10.2022
13:05:38
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004358
affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner ought, in my
opinion, to be permitted to lead the evidence of its witness subject to
terms.
9. Subject, therefore, to the petitioner paying costs of ₹ 25,000/- to
the respondent on or before the next date of hearing, by way of a
crossed cheque/demand draft, the petitioner shall be permitted to lead
the evidence of PW-1 on the date when the matter is next listed before
the learned ADJ.
10. The impugned order would stand set aside/quashed to the said
extent.
11. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, do not survive for consideration
are accordingly disposed of.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
OCTOBER 14, 2022
rb
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:19.10.2022
13:05:38
