Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Mr. Jitender Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submitted that owing to the lockdown and the difficulties being faced by the counsel in filing cases across the country, the Supreme Court vide orders dated 23rd March, 2020 had, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).3/2020 in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, directed that the period of limitation shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March, 2020 till further orders in that petition. Vide order dated 8th March, 2021, the suo moto proceedings were disposed of directing that in computing the period of limitation, the period from 15th March, 2020 till 14th March, 2021 shall stand excluded.

8. The application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC placed on this record as Annexure 5, states that after much effort, the file containing all relevant documents could be located on 14th March, 2020. Not a word has been mentioned as to why, thereafter, no action was taken on behalf of the petitioner/defendant to file the written statement and reply. The lockdown in Delhi was enforced w.e.f. 23rd March, 2020 whereas, the nationwide lockdown was announced with effect from w.e.f. 25th March, 2021, which was extended from time to time. The District Courts started functioning in May, 2020 in a limited fashion, physically and through video conferencing. The lockdown was lifted w.e.f. 1st June, 2020.

15. It was thus made clear that the benefit of the order dated 23rd March, 2020 would be available only to those who were vigilant of their rights and not lethargic. There is also nothing in the orders of the Supreme Court that suggests that when an action has not been taken within the prescribed period of limitation, the merits of the application for condonation of delay need not be looked into and the same is to be allowed automatically. Only where the limitation has expired during the lockdown and even the extended period, which can be allowed in the discretion of the court, also expired in the lockdown period, a party can claim that no delay has occurred as the Supreme Court had enlarged limitation periods prescribed.

16. In the present case, there was no lockdown from 1st June, 2020. What expired during the lockdown was not the limitation to file the written statement. On being served on 11th January, 2020, the petitioner/defendant had to file the written statement by 10th February, 2020. On 14th March, 2020, when the misplaced file and documents were supposedly found, a further period of 33 days had already expired. By 23rd/25th March, 2020, when the lockdown in Delhi/nationwide lockdown was announced, a total of 72/74 days had already expired. Second proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC vests the court with discretion to condone delay in filing the written statement provided a total time period of 120 days from the date of service of summons had not elapsed. It is in this context that the petitioner/defendant was required to explain why he did not file the written statement immediately in June, 2020 and waited for a further period of almost three months to file the written statement. It would have been probably different had the first 30 days of limitation being available when the lockdown was enforced, as in that event, without a doubt, the limitation would have been enlarged in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court.