Order 20

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS 612/23
CNR No. DLET01-013056-2023
SEEMA JAIN Vs. PANKAJ JAIN
08.09.2026
VC is not working today.
Present : Sh. Siddhant Dhingra, Ld.Counsel for the plaintiffs
alongwith plaintiffs in person.
Sh. J.K. Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel for the defendant
no.1alongwith defendant no. 1 in person.
Defendant no. 2 is already exparte vide order dated
14.01.2025.
Defendant no. 3 in person.
The matter is listed today for arguments on the
application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. However, Ld. Counsel
for defendant no. 1 submits that an application under Section 151
CPC, seeking clarification and praying that the written statement
filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 be taken on record, is pending
for consideration.
This Court has perused the said application and in
which the defendant no. 1 has sought the following two reliefs,
namely
(i) to allow the application and restore the present
case in terms of the order dated 04.03.2025 and
CS 612/23 CNR No. DLET01-013056-2023 SEEMA JAIN Vs. PANKAJ JAIN Page No. 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
(ii) to clarify that the written statement filed on
04.03.2025 stands taken on record.
The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs objected to the
application on the ground of its maintainability with the
submissions that the suit has never been terminated, therefore,
the question of its restoration doesn’t arise.
As regards the first prayer, the same is ex-facie liable
to be rejected for the reason that the present suit is still pending
and has never been dismissed or otherwise abated. Therefore,
there is no question of restoring the suit. Accordingly, the first
prayer is hereby rejected.
As far as the second prayer is concerned it is argued
by the Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 that the written statement
ought to have been taken on record as it had already been filed
and further, that the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC
filed by defendant no. 1 was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of
this Court vide order dated 04.03.2025. It is, therefore, contended
that the written statement should be treated as having been taken
on record.
Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs opposes
the said contention and submits that the application seeking
condonation of delay in filing the written statement had already
CS 612/23 CNR No. DLET01-013056-2023 SEEMA JAIN Vs. PANKAJ JAIN Page No. 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
been dismissed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order
dated 14.01.2025 and therefore unless the delay in filing the
written statement was condoned, the written statement could not
have been taken on record.
Heard.
This Court has perused the application under Section
5 of the Limitation Act, whereby defendant no. 1 had sought
condonation of delay of approximately 50 days in filing the
written statement. The said application, along with the order
dated 14.01.2025, has also been perused.
This Court finds force in the submissions advanced
on behalf of the plaintiffs as once the application seeking
condonation of delay in filing the written statement had been
dismissed vide order dated 14.01.2025 then consequently the
delay remained uncondoned. Therefore, the written statement of
the defendant no. 1 could not have been treated as duly filed or
taken on record unless and until the delay was condoned by the
Court.
The subsequent order dated 04.03.2025 allowing the
application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, per-se doesn't amount
to condonation of the delay in filing the written statement. The
order dated 04.03.2025 cannot therefore, be construed as having
CS 612/23 CNR No. DLET01-013056-2023 SEEMA JAIN Vs. PANKAJ JAIN Page No. 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
automatically revived or validated the written statement,
particularly when the earlier order dated 14.01.2025 rejecting the
application for condonation of delay had attained finality as
defendant no.1 only challenged the order by which he was
proceeded as ex-parte and not the dismissal of the application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Accordingly, in the absence of any order condoning
the delay in filing the written statement, the written statement
could not have been taken on record and therefore, the defect
arising from the delay in filing the written statement was never
cured.
In view of the above the application under Section
151 CPC filed by defendant no. 1 is found to be devoid of merit
and is accordingly dismissed.
An application under Section 151 CPC dated
05.09.2026 for supplying the copy of complete set of plaint,
application for amendment of plaint, amended plaint and
documents filed by the defendant no. 3 today.
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has supplied the copy of
the plaint and documents alongwith the application under Order
VI Rule 17 CPC, amended plaint and documents to the defendant
no. 3 today in Court.
CS 612/23 CNR No. DLET01-013056-2023 SEEMA JAIN Vs. PANKAJ JAIN Page No. 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
In view thereof, the application under Section 151
CPC dated 05.09.2026 filed by defendant no. 3 stands disposed
off accordingly.
Reply, if any, to the application under Order VI Rule
17 CPC by the defendant no. 3 be filed in Court with supply of
advance copy to the opposite side at least 15 days before the next
date of hearing.
Be listed for reply and arguments on the application
under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 17.11.2026.
The date has been given as per the convenience and
request of Ld. Counsel for the parties.
(Sandeep Kumar Sharma)
District Judge-04, East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
08.09.2026
CS 612/23 CNR No. DLET01-013056-2023 SEEMA JAIN Vs. PANKAJ JAIN Page No. 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --