Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Hachette Book Publishing India Pvt Ltd vs Tg Shenoy & Anr on 9 February, 2023

Author: Navin Chawla

Bench: Navin Chawla

            $~12
            *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
            +    CS(OS) 371/2022
                 HACHETTE BOOK PUBLISHING INDIA PVT LTD.
                                                            ..... Plaintiff
                                 Through: Ms.Dahlia Sen Oberoi, Adv.

                                       versus

                     TG SHENOY & ANR.
                                                                  ..... Defendants
                                       Through:     Ms.Swathi            Sukumar,
                                                    Mr.Pratyush Rao & Mr.Ritik
                                                    Raghuwanshi, Advs. for D-1.
                                                    Mr.Deepak Gogia, Adv. for D-
                                                    2.

                  CORAM:
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
                               ORDER

% 09.02.2023 I.A. 18855/2022

1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking condonation of delay of 13 days beyond the maximum permitted period of 45 days for filing of the replication.

2. The learned counsel for the defendant no.1, placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ram Sarup Lugani and Another v. Nirmal Lugani and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1353, submits that the Court does not have the power to condone the delay in filing of the replication beyond 45 days of the service of the written statement on the plaintiff.

3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, however, submits that in the present case, there were exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the plaintiff, which caused the delay in filing of the replication.

4. In Ram Sarup Lugani (Supra), the Division Bench of this Signature Not Verified Court after examining the provisions of the Delhi High Court Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Signing Date:10.02.2023 16:03:52 (Original Side) Rules, 2018 and specifically Rule 5 of Chapter VII thereof, has observed as under:-

"27. Since the language of Rule 5 shows that the intention of the Rule making Authority was to exclude the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, giving no power to the court to condone any delay beyond the period of 45 days for accepting the replication, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs cannot be heard to state that Rule 16 could have been very well invoked by the learned Single Judge to take on record the belatedly filed replication. The sanctity of the period of 30 days, extendable by another period of 15 days cannot be diluted by giving such an interpretation. In view of the specific provision and the timeline stated in Rule 5 of Chapter VII, that precludes the court from extending the timeline beyond 45 days for accepting the replication, the argument advanced by Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs that notwithstanding Rule 5, provisions of Rule 16 and Rule 14 of Chapter I of the DHC Rules empower the court to take on record, the replication even beyond the period of 45 days and ought to have been resorted to by the learned Single Judge, cannot be accepted.

xxxxx

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."

5. Verified Signature Not In view of the above, the Court cannot condone the delay in Digitally Signed By:SUNIL filing of the replication. The application is accordingly dismissed. The Signing Date:10.02.2023 16:03:52 replication filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of defendant no.1 shall be expunged from the record.

6. The learned counsel for the defendant no.1/applicant submits that the plaintiff in its reply has produced certain documents, production whereof was prayed for in this application. She submits that the present application can be disposed of reserving liberty in the defendant no.1 to seek production of other documents at an appropriate stage.

7. The application is accordingly disposed of, reserving the liberty in the defendant no.1.

8. This application has been filed by the plaintiff praying for the following relief:-

i) Issue an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 from making and instigating others to make defamatory statements against the Plaintiff in future or causing to be published any information in the actual world as also in cyberspace which is derogatory or defamatory of the Plaintiff;

ii) Issue a direction to immediately delete all the false, derogatory and defamatory statements vis-à-vis the Plaintiff that still remain on all social media platforms, including Twitter, of the Defendants;

iii) Issue an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants and other persons from publishing, broadcasting, distributing or disseminating in any form whatsoever any defamatory material relating to or arising from, in connection with any alleged acts or behaviour relatable to the Plaintiff;"

9. The learned counsel for the defendant no.1 submits that before filing of the present suit itself, the defendant no.1 had deleted the Signature Not Verified complained tweet. She further submits that the defendant no.1 would Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Signing Date:10.02.2023 16:03:52 not make any further tweets against the plaintiff without seeking permission of the Court.

10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand, submits that there are still further comments being made on the complained tweet. She, however, does not dispute that these are not by the defendant no. 1 and the tweet of the defendant no. 1 has been deleted.

11. In view of the above statement and binding the defendant no. 1 thereto, the application is disposed of. CS(OS) 371/2022

12. The additional documents filed by the plaintiff were taken on record vide order dated 23.11.2022. The defendants are granted three weeks' further time to file their affidavit(s) of admission/denial of these documents.

13. List before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) for further proceedings on 23rd May, 2023.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J FEBRUARY 9, 2023/rv Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Signing Date:10.02.2023 16:03:52