Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: ESIC 10/23
TARUNA KANOJIA Vs. TAJ VIVANTA HOTEL
20/09/2023
One of the Regular Steno is on leave.
Pr. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 2.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3.
WS/reply on behalf of respondent no. 3 has been filed.
Rejoinder to the written statement of the respondent no. 3 has
been filed on behalf of petitioners.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that the copy of
the reply as filed by the respondent no. 2 has not been supplied to her
in compliance to previous order.
Let the copy be supplied during the course of the day.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that the WS on
behalf of respondent no. 2 has been filed on 18/05/2023. He further
submits that the application U/o 8 Rule 1 CPC for condonation of
delay in filing the WS has also been filed by respondent no. 2. It is his
submission that there is a delay of around 10 days in filing the
reply/WS.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner opposes the same submitting that
the WS be not taken on record as the same has been filed beyond the
period of 30 days.
It can be observed that the summons issued to the respondent
no. 2 by this court were received back unserved. However, Ld.
Counsel for the respondent no. 2 in his application admits that the
summons were served upon the respondent no. 2 on 11/04/2023. The
WS was filed on 18/05/2023. It is submitted that the WS could not be
-- 1 of 2 --
filed as the partner of R2 were out of station and came to know about
the pendency of the suit on 20/04/2023. He submits that the delay is
bonafide and unintentional.
It is well settled that procedure is the handmaid of justice.
Furthermore, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff, if the WS
is taken on record. It is always expedient and in interest of justice that
the matter is disposed of on merits.
Thus, in view of the fact that scales of justice are to be
balanced while deciding the present application, the application at
hand stands allowed.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that the
replication has been filed at a belated stage and the petitioner was
supposed to file the replication before today's date of hearing.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the replication has
been filed by the petitioner at the earliest without any unnecessary
delay or adjournment.
Considering the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner and the fact that it is always expedient and in interest of
justice that the matter is disposed of on merits and the parties are
permitted to place on record their pleadings, allowing the plaintiff to
file replication would not in any manner cause any prejudice to the
respondents. The replication to the WS of respondent no. 2 is
accordingly taken on record.
Now to come up for 11/01/2024.
(Prigya Gupta)
ASCJcumJSCCcumGuardian Judge,
East, KKD Courts, Delhi/20/09/2023
-- 2 of 2 --