Delhi High Court - Orders
Amarendra Dhari Singh vs Aditi Shivinder Singh on 18 May, 2023
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 243/2022
AMARENDRA DHARI SINGH ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Azmat H. Amanullah
versus
ADITI SHIVINDER SINGH ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. Aditya Dewan, Mr.Sahil Chandra
and Mr.Parth Tiwari, Advocates
(M:852761077)
CORAM:
MS. VANDANA JAIN (DHJS) JOINT REGISTRAR(JUDICIAL)
ORDER
% 18.05.2023 I.A No. 1265/2023 (U/S 5 of the Limitation Act. 1963 filed by defendant seeking condonation of delay of 90 days in filing written statement) Rejoinder not filed. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that he does not wish to file rejoinder.
Arguments on the I.A. heard.
Record perused.
Admittedly the defendant was served on 04.06.2022 and the written statement was filed by the defendant for the first time on 01.10.2022 i.e. within 120 days from the date of service. The written statement was re- filed on 29.10.2022 i.e. within 30 days from the date of raising the objections.
Learned counsel for the defendant has stated in the application that the delay caused till filing the written statement was neither intentional nor This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2023 at 15:13:29 deliberate and it was for the reasons which were beyond the control of the defendant. It is stated in the application that the written statement was drafted after consultation with different persons as the multiple proceedings between the parties for the same transactions were pending. It is also stated that the present suit is intricately linked with the ongoing investigations being carried out by EOW and ED on the basis of complaint filed by the defendant against some third person.
Learned counsel has argued that ascertaining the true and updated facts required time which resulted in inadvertent delay. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the delay has been caused intentionally as four suits were instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant and in one of the cases, the written statement was filed in August, 2022 which contained nearly identical averments to the written statement filed in the present suit.
The reasons stated by the defendant which allegedly caused delay in filing written statement in the present suit cannot be ignored solely on the ground that in one of the litigations filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, the written statement was filed in August, 2022. There is no occasion to go through the contents of the written statement filed in that other suit and comparing the same with the present one. The case is at its nascent stage. In order to conduct a fair trial, the defence of the defendant is required to be taken on record.
However, at the same time, the plaintiff cannot be put to loss by taking the written statement on record without putting the defendant to terms. Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, the written statement is taken on record, subject to cost of Rs.30,000/- payable to the plaintiff This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2023 at 15:13:29 within a week from today.
I.A. stands disposed of.
CS(OS) 243/2022 Replication be filed in accordance with law.
Put up for completion of pleadings on 09.10.2023.
VANDANA JAIN (DHJS) JOINT REGISTRAR(JUDICIAL) MAY 18, 2023/tp This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2023 at 15:13:30