Delhi High Court - Orders
Vinod Kumar Kad & Ors vs Girish Kumar Kad & Ors on 20 October, 2020
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 20th October, 2020
+ CS(OS) 636/2019
VINOD KUMAR KAD & ORS. ..... Plaintiff
Represented by: Mr. Anand Nandan, Advocate.
versus
GIRISH KUMAR KAD & ORS. ..... Defendant
Represented by: Mr. Lalit Gupta, Mr. Sidharth Arora,
Advs. for D-2 to 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Review Pet. 148/2020 (under Order XLVII r/w Section 114 and 151 CPC-by plaintiff) The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.
1. The present review petition has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking review of the order dated 3rd September, 2020 passed by this Court in IA 7670/2020 under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC condoning the delay in filing the written statement by defendant No.2 to 5.
2. The order dated 3rd September, 2020 in IA 7670/2020 was passed by this Court for the reason that the defendant No.2 to 5 were directed to file written statement within 30 days vide order dated 5 th February, 2020, however the same could not be filed and thereafter due to COVID-19 lockdown the defendant No.2 to 5 filed written statement on 31 st August, CS(OS) 636/2019 Page 1 of 4 2020. Hence, this Court condoned the delay in filing the written statement.
3. By this application the plaintiff states that this Court had condoned the delay in view of the reliance of defendant No.2 to 5 on the interim order passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on 23 rd March, 2020 in Suo Motu W.P.(C) No. 3/2020 whereby the Supreme Court held as under:
"This Court has taken Suo Motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid19 Virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by litigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Special Laws (both Central and/or State).
To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings.
We are exercising this power under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India and declare that this order is a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and authorities.
This order may be brought to the notice of all High Courts for being communicated to all subordinate Courts/Tribunals within their respective jurisdiction.
Issue notice to all the Registrars General of the High Courts, returnable in four weeks."
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that order dated 23 rd March, CS(OS) 636/2019 Page 2 of 4 2020 passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has been clarified in a recent decision dated 18th September, 2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3007-3008/2020 titled „Sagufa Ahmed & Ors. Vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.‟ wherein it was held that by the order dated 23rd March, 2020 the Supreme Court extended only the period of limitation and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the Statute.
5. In the present case it may be noted that the plaintiff was given 30 days time to file the written statement on 5th February, 2020 and since 15th March, 2020 the period of limitation was extended, followed by a complete lockdown, whereafter non-urgent filing before the Delhi High Court started from 8th May, 2020. Thus deleting the period when the work was suspended with effect from 16th March, 2020 to 8th May, 2020 and the written statement having been filed on 31st August, 2020, this Court finds that the written statement was filed within period of 120 days.
6. Reliance of the plaintiff in Sagufa Ahmed (supra) is misconceived in view of the explanation under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC wherein it has been noted that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of the Superior Court shall not be a ground for review of the judgment. Further, even in Sagufa Ahmed Supreme Court vide its order dated 18th September, 2020 noted that the period of limitation was extended by the order of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court dated 23 rd March, 2020 in suo-motu W.P.(C) No. 3/2020 and as noted above considering the fact that after the total lockdown and even from May 2020 partially the lockdown was opened cautioning to senior citizens and people with co-morbidity, this Court finds CS(OS) 636/2019 Page 3 of 4 no error apparent in the order dated 3rd September, 2020.
7. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed.
8. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
OCTOBER 20, 2020 'ga' CS(OS) 636/2019 Page 4 of 4