[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Onextel Media Pvt Ltd And Anr & Anr vs Anil Kumar Editor In Chief Telecom Live ... on 15 April, 2026
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 15th April, 2026
+ CS(OS) 876/2024 & I.A. 24738/2025
ONEXTEL MEDIA PVT LTD AND ANR. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Mamta Tiwari and Mr. Vijay
Kumar, Advs.
Mob: 9891466518
Email: [email protected]
versus
ANIL KUMAR EDITOR IN CHIEF TELECOM LIVE MAGAZINE
& ANR. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Mr. Sanyam
Jain, Mr. P. Rohit Ram, Ms.
Khushboo Singhal and Ms. Mishra
Divya Santosh, Advs. for D-1 & 2
Mob: 801064429
Email: [email protected]
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):
ORDER
% 15.04.2026
This Case is being taken up today as 14th April, 2026 was declared as a
holiday on account of 'B.R. Ambedkar Jayanti'.
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs
seeking condonation of delay of 128 days in filing the replication.
2. This Court notes that the time period for filing of replication is
governed by Rule 5 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side)
Rules, 2018 which is reproduced as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
5. Replication.-The replication, if any, shall be filed within 30 days
of receipt of the written statement. If the Court is satisfied that the
plaintiff was prevented by sufficient cause for exceptional and
unavoidable reasons in filing the replication within 30 days, it may
extend the time for filing the same by a further period not exceeding
15 days but not thereafter. For such extension, the plaintiff shall be
burdened with costs, as deemed appropriate. The replication shall not
be taken on record, unless such costs have been paid/ deposited. In
case no replication is filed within the extended time also, the Registrar
shall forthwith place the matter for appropriate orders before the
Court. An advance copy of the replication together with legible copies
of all documents in possession and power of plaintiff, that it seeks to
file along with the replication, shall be served on the defendant and
the replication together with the said documents shall not be accepted
unless it contains an endorsement of service signed by the defendant/
his Advocate.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasis Supplied)
3. Perusal of the aforesaid Rule clearly shows that the period of filing
replication has been stipulated as 30 days. Further, the Court may extend the
period for filing the replication for further period of 15 days, if sufficient
cause is shown, but not thereafter.
4. This Court notes that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Ram Sarup Lugani and Another Versus Nirmal Lugani and Others, 2020
SCC OnLine Del 1353, while dealing with the power of the Court to
condone delay in filing replication, has categorically held that the Delhi
High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 will prevail over the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"). Therefore, the phrase, "but not thereafter" used
in Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, as aforesaid,
is mandatory in nature and the Court cannot permit the replication to be
taken on record beyond the prescribed period of 45 days. Thus, it was held
as follows:
"xxx xxx xxx
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that in case of any
inconsistency, the provisions of the Delhi High Court (Original
Side) Rules, 2018 will prevail over the Civil Procedure Code. The
inherent powers contemplated in Rule 16 are not to be exercised to
overcome the period of limitation expressly prescribed in Rule 5 for
filing the replication. Nor can Rule 5 be circumvented by invoking
any other provision or even the inherent powers of the court,
contrary to the scheme of the Rules. The phrase, "but not
thereafter" used in Rule 5 makes it crystal clear that the Rule is
mandatory in nature and the court cannot permit the replication to
be taken on the record after the plaintiff has exhausted the
maximum prescribed period of 45 days. Any other interpretation will
result in causing violence to the DHC Rules.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasis Supplied)
5. Considering the aforesaid, no merit is found in the present application.
The application is accordingly dismissed.
CS(OS) 876/2024
6. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for further proceedings on
25th May, 2026.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
APRIL 15, 2026/ak
