Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS (COMM.)/709/2023
DLND010109402023
CANARA BANK
VS.
SHREE BALAJI FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROCESSING
INDUSTRIES & ORS.
16.10.2024
Present: Sh. Ashish Mishra, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Sh. D.P. Chaturvedi, Advocate for Defendant nos. 1
to 3.
Sh. Anmol Panwar, Advocate for Defendant no. 4
(through video conferencing).
Ms. Nikhat Parveen, Proxy for Sh. S.K. Tyagi,
Advocate for Defendant no. 5 (through video
conferencing).
Heard. File perused.
Affidavit concerning admission denial of documents
of plaintiff alongwith proof of payment of cost are already filed
on behalf of defendant no. 4. Advance copy thereof already
supplied to the opposite side.
Ld. Counsel of plaintiff, in all fairness, accepts the
receipt of partial cost of Rs. 2500/- from defendant no. 4.
However, he has informed that the defendant nos. 1 to 3 have not
paid the costs till date.
It is pointed by Ld. Counsel of defendant nos. 1 to 3
that an application under Section 151 CPC seeking waiver of cost
imposed vide order dated 11.09.2024, is already filed on behalf
of defendant nos. 1 to 3. Copy thereof supplied to the opposite
side.
Contd:-
-- 1 of 5 --
-2-
Ld. Counsel of plaintiff, on instructions, states at Bar
that he does not wish to file any written reply to the aforesaid
application.
Accordingly, arguments on the aforesaid application
heard. Record perused.
By way of this application, the applicant/defendant
no. 1 is seeking waiver of costs on the ground that it being a
partnership firm, acts through its partners i.e., defendant nos. 2
and 3 and it is only a legal entity and therefore, the cost imposed
upon defendant no. 1 is liable to be waived off by the Court.
Ld. Counsel of applicant/defendant no. 1 has argued
on the aforesaid lines of the averments made in the application.
He submits that defendant no. 1 is simply a partnership firm and
since defendant nos. 2 and 3 are ready to pay the costs imposed
upon them, the applicant/defendant no. 1 should not be
compelled to pay the costs, it being legal entitity being run and
managed by defendant nos. 2 and 3.
Per contra, the application is opposed on behalf of
non applicant/plaintiff bank on the ground that the defendant nos.
1 to 3 repeatedly failed to comply with the directions issued by
this Court, resulting into imposition of costs of Rs. 5,000/- each
upon them vide order dated 11.09.2024 passed by this Court and
there is no justifiable ground shown or disclosed by applicant for
waiver of costs. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
Record would show that the defendant nos. 1 to 4
including the applicant/defendant no. 1 failed to file affidavit
concerning admission denial of documents of plaintiff alongwith
Contd:-
-- 2 of 5 --
-3-
their respective written statements despite grant of several
opportunities, as reflected from proceedings dated 03.07.2024
and 11.09.2024, due to which costs of Rs. 5,000/- each was
imposed upon them. In this backdrop and for the negligent
conduct on the part of applicant/defendant no. 1 in not complying
with the provisions of law regarding filing of affidavit
concerning admission denial of documents of plaintiff despite
grant of several opportunities which resulted in unnecessary
delay in the matter, the Court is not inclined to allow the prayer
made in the application under consideration. Consequently,
finding no ground to waive off the previous cost, the application
is hereby dismissed.
At this stage, partial costs of Rs. 2500/- each is paid
on behalf of defendant nos. 1 to 3 by their Counsel to Ld.
Counsel of plaintiff and on request, receipts regarding deposit of
remaining costs of Rs. 2500/- each in DLSA, New Delhi District
are allowed to be placed on record within two weeks from the
date of this order.
Affidavit concerning admission denial of documents
of plaintiff filed on behalf of defendant nos. 1 to 3 is filed.
However, perusal of the same reveals that the same is merely a
photocopy. Hence, the said defendants are directed to file original
thereof on record within two weeks from the date of this order,
with direction to supply advance copy thereof to the opposite
side.
It is pointed out that two separate applications under
Order VIII Rule 1 CPC seeking condonation of delay in filing
Contd:-
-- 3 of 5 --
-4-
their respective written statements moved by defendant nos. 1 to
3 on the one hand and by defendant no. 4 on the other hand, are
pending disposal.
With the joint consent of both the sides, argument on
the aforesaid applications heard. Record perused.
Record would show that the applicants/defendant
nos. 1 to 4 were duly served with the summons of the suit for
28.03.2024. However, they have filed their respective written
statements beyond statutory period of 30 days from the dates of
their respective service, however, within the maximum period of
120 days. It is trite law that rules and procedures are hand made
of justice and technicalities should not allow to stand in the way
of doing substantial justice to the parties and also that the Courts
must endevour to decide the matter on merits.
After considering the submissions on behalf of boht
the sides, the reasons assigned in the applications and keeping in
view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the
interest of justice, delay in filing the written statements by the
respective defendants is hereby condoned, however, subject to
payment of total costs of Rs. 6,000/- by defendant nos. 1 to 3 and
costs of Rs. 6,000/- by defendant no. 4, which shall be payable to
the plaintiff bank. With these directions, both these applications
stand disposed off accordingly.
The plaintiff is directed to file affidavit concerning
admission denial of documents, if so filed by the defendants,
with direction to supply advance copy thereof to the opposite
side by next date of heairng.
Contd:-
-- 4 of 5 --
-5-
Put up on 16.12.2024 for compliance, payment of
costs, First Case Managment Hearing and framing of issues.
Vidya Prakash
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
16.10.2024(V)
-- 5 of 5 --