Delhi High Court
M/S Mn Automobile Private Limited vs Guriqbal Singh & Anr. on 16 May, 2023
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3530
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 16.05.2023
+ CM(M) 1343/2022 & CM APPL. 52053/2022
M/S MN AUTOMOBILE PRIVATE LIMITED
..... Petitioner
versus
GURIQBAL SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudeep Kumar Shrotriya, Mr.
Prakhar Singh and Mr. Dhananjay P.,
Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. Varun S. Ahuja, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.10.2022 in CS
(COMM) 317/22 titled as "Guriqbal Singh vs. M/S M N Automobile
Private Limited & Ors." whereby the learned Trial Court on the failure
of the petitioner/ defendant to file the written statement had closed the
right to file the same.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ defendant submits
that the petitioner was served on 29.06.2022 by summons of the suit,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:22.05.2023
13:45:46
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3530
though in the impugned order, the learned Trial Court had noted that the
petitioner was served on 15.06.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the order dated
13.07.2022, it is clearly observed by the learned Trial Court that
defendant No.1 was served on 29.06.2022, though the impugned order
notes the date of service as 15.06.2022. In any case, learned counsel
submits that whether the time period to file the written statement is
reckoned with effect from 15.06.2022 or 29.06.2022, filing of the
written statement on 06.10.2022 through email was within that
stipulated period of 120 days, as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the Commerical Court
Act, 2015.
4. For the intervening period of the delay in filing the written
statement, learned counsel submits that vide the application under Order
VIII Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of the CPC, 1908, detailed reasons were
given apart from the fact that the counsel had categorically mentioned in
paragraph 5 of the said application that someone in the family of the
counsel for the petitioner/ defendant was tested positive for COVID-19.
5. Learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court while
passing the impugned order had not considered the medical documents
placed on record. In any case, learned counsel submits that the period of
120 days had not elapsed even by 06.10.2022.
6. Learned counsel submits that the delay which has occurred is 67
days over and above the 30 days period, as stipulated and could have
been condoned.
7. Learned counsel submits that the procedures, even though a part
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:22.05.2023
13:45:46
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3530
of the Commercial CourtS Act, 2015 are still the handmaid of justice..
8. Mr. Varun S. Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
opposes the aforesaid submissions and submits that the learned Trial
Court has passed a correct order in view of the facts that had arisen in
the present case and prays that the present petition be dismissed with
costs.
9. After having considered the submissions of the parties, this Court
is of the considered opinion that so far as the Commercial Court Act,
2015 is concerned, there cannot be any doubt that the timelines, as
stipulated, are to be observed strictly.
10. The rigors of the Commercial Courts Act have been already
settled by the Supreme Court in SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited
vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Ltd. And Ors reported in
(2019) 12 SC 210. However, this Court has considered the delay which
has occurred of about 67 days reckoned from 29.06.2022 and is of the
considered opinion that the said delay will not come in the way of the
petitioner from entitling it to file its written statement. In any case, the
settled law of the land is that the cases ought to be considered and
disposed of on merits rather than technicalities.
11. Having regard to the fact that though the written statement was
filed beyond 30 days period, as stipulated, however, has been filed
within the 90 days extended period, as stipulated in Order VIII Rule 1 of
the CPC, 1908, the written statement could and ought to have been
taken on record.
12. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court is directed to take the written
statement along with the affidavit of admission and denial filed on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:22.05.2023
13:45:46
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3530
behalf of petitioner on record and proceed with the matter in accordance
with law.
13. The petition along with pending application is disposed of with no
order as to costs.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
MAY 16, 2023/nd
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:22.05.2023
13:45:46
