Delhi High Court
Parmeshwar Jana vs Lakhan Singh on 20 January, 2023
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000480
$~55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 20.01.2023
+ CM(M) 89/2023
PARMESHWAR JANA ..... Petitioner
versus
LAKHAN SINGH ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Gautam, Adv.
For the Respondent : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
CM APPL. 2947/2023 (Exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 89/2023 & CM APPL. 2946/2023
3. Petitioner challenges the order dated 20.10.2022 in CS (COMM.)
No. 393/2021 titled as "Shri Lakhan Singh vs. Shri Parmeshwar
Jana", passed by the learned Trial Court closing the right to file the
written statement since the same was not filed within 120 days as
prescribed under the law.
4. Mr. Gautam, submits that the impugned order does not take into
consideration the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:23.01.2023
15:50:23
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000480
Corporates Vs. Dee Vee Projects Limited reported as (2022) 5 SCC 112
has granted liberty to the similarly situated persons to file their written
statement even beyond 120 days as contemplated under the Commercial
Courts Court, for the reason of pandemic situation as prevailed in the
country.
5. Learned Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court did
not consider the fact that even as on 04.03.2022, it had granted 4 weeks
to the petitioner to file the written statement.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court could
and ought to have granted further time to the petitioner to file his written
statement even though the period fell beyond the period of 120 days.
7. This Court is heard the arguments addressed by learned counsel
Mr. Gautam and finds the same unsustainable and untenable in law.
8. The judgement of Prakash Corporates (supra) covered a period
when the covid pandemic was having its sway all over the country and
keeping in view the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) 3/2020 "In Re: Cognizance for Extension
of Limitation", the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Corporates
(Supra) held that the same benefit ought to be extended even in the cases
of suits falling within the Commercial Courts Act.
9. The other fallacy of the argument is that the time could be
extendable even beyond 120 days. This Court in the case of Machine
Tools Aids India Vs. M/s. GNC Infa LLP & Anr. (Neutral Citiation
No. 2023/DHC/000160) has categorically held that the 120 days period
from the date of service of summons upon the defendant is mandatory
and cannot be extended further by virtue of any provision of Code of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:23.01.2023
15:50:23
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000480
Civil Procedure.
10. The learned Trial Court has also taken into consideration the
judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SCG Contracts
(India) Private Limited Vs. K. S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private
Ltd. & Ors., 2019 (12) SCC 210 whereby it was held that the provision
of the Order VIII Rule 1 CPC as applicable to the Commercial Courts
are mandatory.
11. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any
jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity exercised by the
Trial Court while passing the impugned order and same is upheld.
12. In view of the facts of the case, the cost of Rs. 10,000 as imposed
upon the defendant is set aside while the operational part of the orders
remains untouched.
13. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J .
JANUARY 20, 2023/ms
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:23.01.2023
15:50:23
