Mothers Pride Education Institution Pvt.Ltd v. Smt. Shukla Sehgal

NAVIN CHAWLA, J MAY 11, 2021/Arya/G/A

Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 05.04.2021 Date of Decision : MAY 11, 2021 + CM(M) 144/2021 & CM No.6526/2021 MOTHERS PRIDE EDUCATION INSTITUTION PVT.LTD ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Jai Mohan, Adv. versus SMT. SHUKLA SEHGAL ..... Respondent Through Mr.Kamal Bansal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.02.2020 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-02), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, in Suit, being CS(COMM) No.448/2019, striking off the written statement filed by the defendant/petitioner herein from the record, and the order dated 20.10.2020, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code') as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commercial Courts Act'), refusing to condone the delay in filing of the written statement by the petitioner. Page 2 2. The above Suit was filed by the respondent herein on 19.09.2019 under the Commercial Courts Act. Vide order dated 02.11.2019, summons in the suit was issued to be served on the petitioner, and was served on the petitioner on 12.12.2019. The petitioner entered appearance in the suit on 06.01.2020 and prayed for time to file the written statement. The learned Trial Court by its order dated 06.01.2020 directed the petitioner to file the written statement within the prescribed period and posted the suit for 25.02.2020. 3. On 25.02.2020, the petitioner filed its written statement, however, without Statement of Truth, Affidavit and Verification. Even the application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the written statement was not filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 25.02.2020 was pleased to direct the written statement to be taken off the record. 4. Due to the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and restricted functioning of the Courts, the suit was then taken up for consideration by the learned Trial Court only on 05.08.2020. 5. On 05.09.2020, the petitioner filed another written statement alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the same, which has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide its Impugned Order dated 20.10.2020. 6. The learned Trial Court in its Impugned Order dated 20.10.2020 has held that the written statement and the application having been filed beyond 120 days of service of summons on the petitioner, the delay could not be condoned. The learned Trial Court rejected the submission of the petitioner that as the summons was not issued in the Page 3 format as prescribed by the Practice Direction dated 27.11.2015 of this Court, the period for filing of the written statement commenced only on 25.02.2020 when the petitioner gained knowledge that the Suit had been filed under the Commercial Courts Act. The learned Trial Court held that the Practice Direction dated 27.11.2015 was not applicable to the District Courts and no separate format of summons has been prescribed in the Commercial Courts Act, therefore, format of summons as provided in the Code would be applicable to the District Courts. The learned Trial Court has held that therefore, the prescribed period for filing the written statement had commenced from the day of the service of summons on the petitioner and as the delay in filing the written statement is more than 120 days from the service of summons, the Court has no power to condone the same. 7. The learned Trial Court, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sagufa Ahmed and Ors. v. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., MANU/SC/0697/2020, has further held that order dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020 will also not come to the avail of the petitioner as the same has only extended the period of limit