Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS (COMM) No.28/25
Grades Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
Sangi Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
04.07.2026
Present: Sh. Bilal Ahmad, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Proxy Counsel for defendant.
Arguments on application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC heard.
Ld. Counsel for defendant has argued that the defendant was
served with the summons on 17.02.2025 and appeared through counsel on
07.04.2025. It is further argued that Ld. Predecessor directed the defendant
to file WS as per Commercial Court Act with advance copy to opposite party
vide order dated 07.04.2025 and adjourned matter for 16.07.2025. It is
further argued that the defendant filed WS on 06.06.2025 i.e. after 30 days
but could not file application for condonation of delay, due to Ld.
Predecessor forfeited right of the defendant to file WS vide order dated
19.12.2025. It is further argued that the defendant was not well and was
suffering from hypertension and diabetes and remained hospitalized during
the period from 20.02.2025 to 02.04.2025 and had also to undergo surgery
and discharged from the hospital on 30.05.2025. It is further argued that Ld.
Counsel for defendant asked the defendant to visit Supreme Court of India
for completion of documents on 30.05.2025 but still failed to disclosed
status of the case and acted negligently, due to the defendant changed his
counsel and new counsel has filed this application for condonation of delay
in filing WS. It is further argued that delay in filing of WS may be condoned
and WS may be taken on record.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has opposed this
application and has argued that the defendant has taken a lame excuse just to
seek condonation of delay after forfeiture of right to file WS and if right of
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
the defendant to file WS has already been forfeited, then no condonation of
delay may be allowed. It is further argued that the defendant was supposed
to seek setting aside of order by which right of the defendant was forfeited
to file WS, whereas application has been filed just for condonation of delay
which cannot be allowed. It is further argued that the defendant was
supposed to challenge the order before higher court but has not challenged it
and now order has got finality. It is further argued that the defendant is
owner of the hospital and has annexed documents from his own hospital
which have no sanctity and cannot be relied upon, due to application is
liable to be dismissed.
Admittedly, the defendant was served with the summons on
17.02.2025, whereas WS was filed on 06.06.2025 i.e. 107 days after service
of summons and that too without any application for condonation of delay.
In fact, right of the defendant to file WS was forfeited on 19.12.2025 but the
defendant preferred not to challenge said order and rather moved application
under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on 09.03.2026, which was also got dismissed
for non-prosecution as the defendant failed to contest it. The conduct of the
defendant shows that he has adopted every practice to delay this case and
has moved this application at the stage of PE on 07.05.2025.
Admittedly, a maximum period of 120 days has been
prescribed to file WS, whereas the defendant has 30 days period as a matter
of right, however 90 days period is discretion of the court and extendable
further only on sufficient cause. Defendant has filed this application U/o 8
Rule 1 CPC for condonation of delay when right to file WS has already been
forfeited, whereas condonation of delay may be sought in advance or along
with WS and not thereafter. The remedy after forfeiture of right to file WS is
either to challenge the order before higher court or U/s 151 of CPC, but the
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
defendant has not challenged the order before higher court, whereas
application has been filed after five months on 07.05.2026 against order
dated 19.12.2025. As such, even remedy of review is also barred by
limitation.
Defendant has cited medical reason for condonation of delay,
whereas it is beyond explanation, if the defendant got prepared WS and filed
it on 06.06.2025, then there was no impediment in filing of application for
condonation of delay also with WS, but no explanation has been tendered by
the defendant regarding it. As such, conduct of the defendant is just to delay
this case and application devoid merit, hence dismissed with cost of Rs.
10,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff for causing delay in this case.
Put up for PE on 05.08.2026.
(Devender Kumar)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
04.07.2026
-- 3 of 3 --