SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD vs VIJAY LIFTERS
$~58
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 05th July, 2024
+ CM(M) 2850/2024 & CM APPL. 36921/2024 & CM APPL. 36922/2024
SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sayan Ray with Mr. Sourav Dutta, Advocates.
versus
VIJAY LIFTERS …..Respondent
Through: Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petitioner herein is defendant before the learned Trial Court who was, admittedly, served on 06.02.2024.
2. When the matter was taken up by learned Trial Court on 16.04.2024, there was no appearance from the side of the defendant but since the video-conferencing system was not functioning, the learned Trial Court deferred passing any adverse order.
3. The appearance from the side of the defendant was put in 02.05.2024 and adjournment was sought for filing of written statement.
4. Learned Trial Court, on 02.05.2024, noticed that since the defendant had failed to file written statement within 30 days from the service and since, no application had been filed by him seeking extension of period and since it had not allowed him to file written statement beyond the aforesaid period of 30 days, the defendant should not have assumed that the period to file written statement had been extended or that he was at liberty to file written statement later on, albeit, within the aforesaid period of 120 days.
5. Fact remains that the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 02.05.2024, permitted the defendant to file written statement within a week but burdened the defendant with a cost of Rs.50,000/-. The cost was imposed, observing that the defendant had failed to specify any valid reason for not filing the written statement within the initial period of 30 days.
6. Such order is under challenge.
7. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when Ms. Pratika, learned counsel for the defendant had appeared before the learned Trial Court, she could not give any satisfactory reply as to why the written statement had not been filed but it has been, somehow, noted in the impugned order, as if she had claimed that she was not answerable in this regard.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner herein states that the written statement was filed before the learned Trial Court on 04.06.2024 and along with the written statement, application under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay in filing written statement was also filed.
9. Said application is still pending adjudication.
10. Be that as it may, in terms of aforesaid direction, contained in impugned order, the defendant should have filed its written statement within a period of one week reckoned from 02.05.2024. Learned counsel for petitioner has, fairly admitted, that there was delay in filing the written statement and he also states that the cost is also yet to be paid.
11. Sh. Abhijeet Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent (plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) has joined the proceedings through VC and appears on advance notice and accepts the notice and leaves it to the discretion of Court to pass appropriate orders.
12. During the course hearing of the present petition, the grievance has been merely restricted to the quantum of the cost. It is reiterated that the cost of Rs.50,000/- is too high, particularly, keeping in mind the fact that the written statement is now already on record and has been submitted well within the outer limit of 120 days.
13. Keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed of with the modification that the cost is reduced to Rs.25,000/-. The written statement is permitted to be taken on record, subject to said cost.
14. Let the cost be paid before the learned Trial Court on the next date of hearing.
15. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE
JULY 5, 2024/sw
CM(M) 2850/2024 1