Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS (Comm.) No.728/2023 (32)
Naman Expo Fab V/s Gaurav Khanduja
CNR No.DLNW01-008954-2023
14.01.2025
Present: Shri Deepak Kohli, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff (through
VC).
Shri Himanshu, Ld. Counsel for the defendant alongwith
defendant in person.
1. A perusal of record reveals that defendant was supplied
complete set of paper book on 22.05.2024, whereafter written statement in
the matter was filed on 02.09.2024, i.e after delay of 73 days. The written
statement was not signed on each page; there was no Statement of Truth
and even not accompanied by any Affidavit of admission/denial of
documents.
2. An application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been filed by
the defendant
inter alia seeking amendment in the written statement. The
said application was filed on 05.12.2024, i.e much beyond the period of
120 days.
3. The arguments on the pending applications were heard on the
last date of hearing, however, at that stage, learned counsel for the
defendant requested for taking instructions for the settlement of matter.
The defendant who is present in Court today is not in a position to pay
anything to the plaintiff.
4. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, “CM
(M) No.1918/2023”, titled as, “Raj Kumar V/s Usha” (DOD: 25.04.2024)
has been pleased to lay down that if written statement is not in conformity
Contd...p/2…
-- 1 of 4 --
- 2 - CS (Comm.) No.728/2023
to the Rule 15A of Order VI CPC, the same cannot be taken on record. For
ready reference, the observations of Hon’ble High Court in case of Raj
Kumar (supra) are re-produced hereunder:
xxxxx
20. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that
the written statement filed by the petitioner is not in
conformity to the Rule 15A of the Order VI CPC.
21. Also from reading of the impugned order, it is
clear that learned Trial Court has not adhered to the
Proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC as the written
statement has to be filed conforming to the above
provision, with greater scrutiny and had earlier
granted time before passing of the impugned orders
to the petitioner to file the written statement in
contravention of the provisions of law. Such
ignorance of law is unexpected and uncalled for.
22. In due consideration of the submissions and
discussion hereinabove, no interference is required
with the orders of learned Trial Court. Petition is
accordingly dismissed.
xxxxx
5. Furthermore, on the same aspect, the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in case reported as, “CS (Comm.) No.178/2016”, titled as, “Shiv
Ratna Paper (P) Ltd. V/s Ridhi Petrochem Pvt. Ltd.” (DOO: 23.03.2017)
has been categorically pleased to lay down as under:
Contd...p/3…
-- 2 of 4 --
- 3 - CS (Comm.) No.728/2023
xxxxx
12. Although, certain averments regarding payments
have been made in the written statement, it is also seen
that the written statement is not in conformity with the
provisions of Order VI Rule 15A(1) of the CPC
inasmuch as it is not supported by an affidavit in the
prescribed form; RPPL has not filed a statement of truth
in support of its pleadings. This also attains significance
as in terms of the prescribed format, RPPL would have
to affirm that all documents in power and possession,
control and custody pertaining to the facts and
circumstances of the deponent have been disclosed and
there is no other document in its possession. This is also
mandated by Sub-rule 9 of Order XI of the CPC as
applicable. In the present case, the written statement
filed by RPPL is lacking in material particulars and
further RPPL has also chosen not to file any relevant
documents to support any of its contentions.
13. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to
permit any reliance on the written statement filed by
RPPL in terms of Sub-rule 4 of Order VI Rule 15A of
the CPC. Thus for all intents and purposes, the plaint
remains uncontroverted. Thus in view of the material
produced by the parties, there is no escaping the
conclusion that SRP is entitled to the amount claimed,
which also includes interest at the rate of 24% p.a. as
specified in the invoices.
xxxxx
6. It is again noted that the application under Order VI Rule 17
CPC was filed by the defendant on 05.12.2024, i.e much beyond the period
of 120 days. In case reported as, “Civil Appeal No.1638/2019)”, titled as,
Contd...p/4…
-- 3 of 4 --
- 4 - CS (Comm.) No.728/2023
“M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. V/s K.S Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors.” (DOD: 12.02.2019), Hon’ble Supreme Court has been
pleased to categorically lay down that a Commercial Court has no power
and jurisdiction to extend the time for filing written statement beyond the
period of 120 days.
7. In view of the above settled position in law, the written
statement filed by defendant cannot be taken on record. The written
statement already lying filed in the matter is accordingly taken off the
record. The defence of the defendant stands struck off.
8. Application U/o VI Rule 17 CPC and application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 accordingly stands dismissed.
9. Now, renotify the matter for arguments on application filed by
plaintiff U/o XIII-A CPC on 20.02.2025.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/14.01.2025
-- 4 of 4 --