Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS (COMM.) 182/23
RVS International Vs. Maruti Suzuki Foundation
25.08.2023
Present : Sh.Amit Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
with AR of the plaintiff.
Ms. Amreen Khaliq, Ld. Counsel for the
defendant.
Counsel for the defendant has filed written
statement; statement of truth; list of documents with documents;
affidavit of admissions and denial of documents; application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and; vakalatnama. Copy
supplied.
Perusal of record shows that defendant was served
through whatsapp on 23.06.2023 and through physical mode on
20.07.2023. Accordingly, the Court has to take the date for
service of the defendant as 20.07.2023 being the last date of
service of summons to the defendant.
Heard on the application under Section 5 of
Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing of the
written statement. Ld. Counsel for the defendant submits that
since the company has various departments for its internal legal
approvals for handling dispute resolution and there is a delay of 5
days whereas in her application, inadvertently she has mentioned
the delay of 35 days as she was calculating the same from
23.06.2023. She further submits that delay is neither intentional
nor deliberate but due to the facts mentioned in the application
contd…
-- 1 of 4 --
:2:
and in case delay is not condoned the same would cause great
prejudice to the legal rights of the defendant as the defendant has
good case on merits.
No reply to the application has been filed by the
plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that application is not
supported by any documents and the same is without any merits.
I have heard ld. Counsels for the parties and perused
the record.
It is also a settled proposition of law that refusing to
condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out
at the very threshold and the cause of justice being defeated.
When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted
against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be
preferred for the other side cannot have claim to have vested
right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay. It is
also a settled proposition of law that an application for
condonation of delay has to be considered with a liberal approach
to further the cause of justice. The duty of courts is to advance
the cause of justice. It can never be to legalize injustice on hair
splitting technicalities. The courts cannot be oblivious to the
ground realties as justice is not dispensed in vacuum.
Perusal of the application shows that the reasons so
stated by the defendant are well founded and Ld. Counsel for the
defendant has given plausible explanation as to why the written
statement could not be filed within time prescribed though the
contd….
-- 2 of 4 --
:3:
same has been filed within the extended period of 120 days as
permissible. In the present case, the delay is explained
satisfactorily and the same can be condoned.
The court is guided by the principles of natural
justice. The cardinal principle of ‘Audi alteram partum’ which is
an essential rule of principles of natural justice is germane to the
matter. ‘Hear the other side’ or ‘that no one should be condemned
unheard’ is the basic postulate of cannons of justice. Right of
hearing is not just a procedural formality, but an inalienable
substantive right. The same cannot be dispensed with under any
circumstance. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
matter the plaintiff can be compensated in terms of money for
causing such delay caused by the defendant.
Accordingly, the instant application filed on behalf
of the defendant seeking condonation of delay of 5 days in filing
the written statement is allowed and the delay is condoned.
Written statement is taken on record. The application seeking
condonation of delay is disposed off accordingly.
Replication to the written statement be filed within
45 days of receipt of written statement along with affidavit of
admission/denial of documents. Advance Copy be given.
At this stage, ld. Counsels for the parties submit that
parties are ready for amicable settlement and requested that the
matter may be referred to Mediation Centre for exploring the
possibilities of settlement.
Contd…
-- 3 of 4 --
:4:
Accordingly, the matter is referred to the mediation
centre and the parties are directed to appear before the Incharge
Mediation Centre on 02.09.2023 at 2.30pm. The parties/counsels
are directed to submit their e-mail addresses and mobile phone
numbers to the reader of this court. Reader of this court is
directed to fill up form B of referral order accordingly and to
forward the same to the mediation centre along with copy of this
order. The referral order be sent to the Mediation Centre by way
of E-mail or other permissible modes. Parties to contact
mediation centre accordingly.
It is made clear that mediation proceedings does not
extend the time frames for filing of replication.
Put up for settlement, if any on 03.10.2023. In case
mediation fails, renotify the matter for admission/denial of
documents, framing of issues and case management hearing.
Anurag Sain
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
25.08.2023
-- 4 of 4 --