Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS (COMM.) 527/24
STATE BANK OF INDIA
VS.
VEER SINGH
11.02.2025
Present: Ms. Shalini Upadhyay, Advocate for Plaintiff
(through video conferencing).
Defendant alongwith Ms. Renu Kuhar, Ld. Legal
Aid Counsel.
Heard. File perused.
Written statement alongwith Statement of Truth, list
of documents with documents, besides, two applications
i.e., (i)
application under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 seeking
condonation of delay in filing the written statement and (ii)
application under Order VII Rule (d) r/w Section 151 CPC, are
already filed on behalf of defendant. Advance copies thereof are
stated to have already been supplied to the opposite side.
Replication alongwith written reply to application of
condonation of delay of defendant, affidavit concerning
admission denial of documents of defendant, already filed on
behalf of plaintiff. Advance copies thereof already supplied to the
opposite side.
However, Ld. Counsel of plaintiff states at Bar that
copy of application under Order VII Rule (d) r/w Section 151
CPC, has not been supplied to her.
Issue notice of the aforesaid application to the
plaintiff bank.
Contd:-
-- 1 of 6 --
-2-
Ms. Shalini Upadhyay Advocate has accepted the
notice of said application on behalf of plaintiff bank.
Ld. Counsel of defendant states at Bar that she will
supply copy of the said application to Counsel of plaintiff during
the course of the day.
Ld. Counsel of plaintiff seeks and is granted four
week’s time for filing written reply to the said application, with
direction to supply advance copy thereof to the opposite side.
It is noticed that the defendant has not filed
admission denial affidavit concerning documents of the plaintiff,
either alongwith written statement or even till date.
With the joint consent of both the parties, arguments
on the application under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 of
defendant, seeking condonation of delay in filing the written
statement, heard. Record perused.
It is stated in the application that the defendant is
poor and uneducated person, not much aware about the legal
procedure and was not in a financial position to engage the
Counsel and later, he came to know about free legal aid available
under New Delhi Legal Services Authority. It is further stated
that the defendant accordingly applied for legal aid counsel in the
month of November, 2024 and got the authority letter from
NDDLSA on 04.12.2024 and accordingly, he met the Counsel
two days prior to the last date of hearing dated 10.12.2024 and
handed over the relevant documents while briefing his case to
her. Based on these averments, it is further stated that delay of 83
Contd:-
-- 2 of 6 --
-3-
days, beyond statutory period of 30 days, in filing the written
statement by defendant is neither intentional nor deliberate and
therefore, such delay may be condoned by this Court.
The application has been opposed by non
applicant/plaintiff through its written reply, wherein it is stated
that no reasonable or justifiable ground is shown or disclosed by
applicant/defendant for condonation of such delay and no
document whatsoever is placed on record in support of the
averments made in the application.
While arguing on the aforesaid lines of the
averments made in the application, Ld. Counsel of defendant has
submitted that since the defendant is poor and illiterate person
and was oblivious of the legal procedure, lenient view may be
taken by this Court while considering the application under
consideration. It is further submitted that no prejudice would be
caused to the plaintiff in case the delay is condoned and the
defence raised by defendant by way of written statement, is
brought on record. She has, therefore, urged that the application
may be allowed and the delay of 83 days may be condoned.
Per contra, the application is strongly opposed on
behalf of plaintiff on the ground that no document whatsoever
has been annexed alongwith application or placed on record in
support of the averments made in the application. It is further
argued that the defendant has failed to disclose any sufficient
ground whatsoever for condonation of delay in filing the written
statement. It is further submitted that the defendant has cooked
Contd:-
-- 3 of 6 --
-4-
up a false story in order to seek indulgence of this Court for
condonation of delay and the present suit involving commercial
dispute, no leniency may be shown in favour of the defendant
who has already committed repeated defaults in repayment of the
loan amount availed by him from the plaintiff bank. It is
therefore, urged that the application may be dismissed.
It may be noted here that the defendant has no where
disclosed in the entire application in hand regarding the mode
and manner through which he came to know about the facility of
free legal aid available to him under the law. The application is
also silent as regards the date when the defendant had actually
approached the office of NDDLSA for providing free legal aid to
defend him in the present suit. Not only this, the application is
also silent as regards the steps taken and/or efforts, if any, made
by defendant to prepare and file written statement at least from
04.12.2024 on which date legal aid Counsel was provided to him
till 28.01.2025 on which date e-filing of written statement is
shown to have been done.
Pertinently, the defendant was duly served with the
summons of the suit through e-mode
i.e., on his whatsapp
number on 07.10.2024 for 15.10.2024. The defendant personally
appeared before the Court on 15.10.2024. The proceedings dated
15.10.2024, as available on record, would show that the
defendant was duly informed by this Court in his vernacular
language that he was required to file the written statement within
30 days (extendable upto 120 days with the leave of the Court
Contd:-
-- 4 of 6 --
-5-
and that too subject to appropriate terms) from the date of his
service and also that legal aid services were being provided by
NDDLSA, PHC, New Delhi and he may approach the concerned
office of NDDLSA, PHC, New Delhi if he wished to avail legal
aid services. His signatures were also obtained in side of
proceedings dated 06.07.2024, in token of having been duly
informed about the same.
In view of above noted facts and circumstances, the
averments made in para no. 2 of the application that defendant
later on came to know about the facility of free legal aid, are
contrary to the record. Moreover, it is quite apparent that the
grounds raised for seeking condonation of delay of about 83
days, beyond the statutory period of 30 days, are quite vague and
general in nature.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as
“
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterpirses Ltd. v. K. S. Infraspace LLP &
Anr.” reported as 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1311, has observed as
under:-
“ xxxxx
41. A perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the various amendments to
Civil Procedure Code and insertion of new rules to the Code
applicable to suits of commercial disputes show that it has
been enacted for the purpose of providing an early disposal
of high value commercial disputes. A purposive
interpretation of the Objects and Reasons and various
amendments to Civil Procedure Code leaves no room for
doubt that the provisions of the Act require to be strictly
construed. If the provisions are given a liberal interpretation,
the object behind constitution of Commercial Division of
Contd:-
-- 5 of 6 --
-6-
Courts, viz. putting the matter on fast track and speedy
resolution of commercial disputes, will be defeated. If we
take a closer look at the Statement of Objects and Reasons,
words such as ‘early’ and ‘speedy’ have been incorporated
and reiterated. The object shall be fulfilled only if the
provisions of the Act are interpreted in a narrow sense and
not hampered by the usual procedural delays plaguing our
traditional legal system.
xxxxx”
In view of the foregoing reasons and the discussion
made herein before and the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex
Court in the above referred decision, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the defendant has failed to show any
justifiable or reasonable ground for condonation of delay in filing
the written statement. Hence, the application under consideration
is hereby dismissed and stands disposed off accordingly.
Consequently, the defence of defendant is hereby struck off.
Put up on 29.04.2025 for reply, if any, and for
arguments on application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC of
defendant.
Vidya Prakash
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
11.02.2025(V)
-- 6 of 6 --