Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS (COMM) No.: 599/24
Naresh Bansal Vs. Puran Chand
05-09-2024
Pr : Sh. Madhav Kumar, counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. Gaurav Malhotra and Sh. Randeep Kumar, counsels for
the defendant.
1. Hardcopy of written statement alongwith affidavit of
admission/ denial of documents, statement of truth and two
applications filed by the plaintiff today. However, softcopy was
filed on 01-08-2024. The two applications are under Order VIII
Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay in filing
written statement and 2nd is under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
2. It is mentioned in the application under Order VIII Rule 1
CPC that there is a delay of only four days in filing written
statement and the same may be condoned as the defendant being
an old man suffering from various ailments like diabetes, hyper-
tension and BP, could not contact the counsel in Delhi as he is
resident of Jammu.
Application has been opposed by plaintiff’s counsel stating
that the delay is not of four days but of 27 days as the summons
were delivered to the defendant personally by the postal
department on 05-06-2024 and e-filing of written statement was
done on 01-08-2024.
It is mentioned in the order dated 29-07-2024 that as per
tracking report, item was delivered to the addressee personally on
05-06-2024 and Jammu court delivered the summons to
defendant on 27-06-2024. Defendant was served twice for the
-- 1 of 3 --
same date and so the earlier date of service is taken as the date of
service which is 05-06-2024.
E-filing of the written statement was done on 01-08-2024
i.e. on the 57th day. In this way, there is a delay of 27 days.
Defendant is stated to be an old man suffering from various
ailments like diabetes, hyper-tension and BP due to which he
could not engage counsel in Delhi and ultimately he appointed
his son as Special Power of Attorney holder who singed the
documents.
In view of the above, delay is condoned and written
statement if taken on record.
3. Plaintiff filed replication, affidavit of admission/ denial of
documents, statement of truth, list of documents and reply to
both the applications. Copies supplied.
4. Ground of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is of
limitation which is a mixed question of law as well as facts and
so that point can not be decided today but issue to that effect
shall be framed. With this observation, the application is
dismissed.
5. Pleadings are complete and following issues are framed:-
1. Whether the suit is barred by period of limitation? OPD
2. Whether there was settlement between the parties after
institution of pre-mediation application in 1,55,076/-	₹
which was duly paid by the defendant to the plaintiff? If
so, its effect? OPD
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to suit amount as prayed for?
OPP
-- 2 of 3 --
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so, for which
period and at what rate? OPP
5. Relief.
No other issues arose and pressed.
6. Now, put up for PE on 18-10-2024. The parties shall lead
evidence by way of affidavits copies of which shall be supplied
to the opposite party one day before the next date.
Both the parties are directed to file their list of witnesses
within 15 days. First, the evidence shall be led by the plaintiff.
(UMED SINGH GREWAL)
District Judge- Commercial Court-05 (Central)
05-09-2024
-- 3 of 3 --