Interim Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Smt. Veena Kumari vs. M/s. Instakart Service Pvt. Ltd.
CNR No.: DLSH01-006076-2024
CS (Comm.) No. 583/2024
28.04.2025
Present : Mr. Vineet Mehta, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Mr. Rohit Jain, Ld. Counsel for the defendant
(
through Video Conferencing).
O R D E R
1. In this application under Section 151 CPC
seeking condonation of delay in filing of written
statement, the issue before the Court is the legality
of service of summons and period of delay in filing
of written statement.
2. The main premise of the defendant is that
there is delay of four days in filing of written
statement as the defendant was not served at its
registered address, as mandated under Order 29
Rule 2 CPC.
3. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
contended that there is unexplained delay of 57 days
in filing of written statement as the defendant was
served with the summons of the suit,
through post at
its registered address, on 27.12.2024.
4. Ld. Counsel for the defendant contended that
the defendant was served with the summons of the
suit at its Delhi address on 19.12.2024 and the said
summons alongwith the copy of the plaint reached
to registered office of the defendant on 20.02.2025
and therefore, there is delay of four days in filing of
written statement on 24.03.2025. In this regard, he
referred Order 29 Rule 2 CPC. He relied on
judgment in
Harendra Nath Ghosal vs. Superfoam
Pvt. Ltd., MANU/WB/0088/1991.
-- 1 of 4 --
5. The plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of
Rs. 41,65,925/- alongwith
pendente-
lite and future
interest @ 18% per annum against the defendant.
6. In the memo of parties, the plaintiff furnished
addresses of the defendant, as under:
“M/s. Instakart Service Pvt. Ltd.
Regd. Office at Building Alyssa
Begonia & Clover, “Embassy Tech
Village”, Outer Ring Road
Devarabeesanahalli, Bengaluru,
Karnataka-560103
Through its Directors
Email: arpit.ahuja@flipkart.com
alok.seth@flipkart.com
kiranaravi.hegde@flipkart.com
Mob/WhatsApp: 9999435334,
9148873773
Also At
M/s. Instakart Service Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors
E-2, Rajan Babu Road, Block-E
Adarsh Nagar, Delhi-110033”
7. According to Master Data of the defendant-
company, the registered office of the defendant is,
as under:
“Building Alyssa, Begonia & Clover
“Embassy Tech Village”, Outer Ring
Road Devarabeesanahalli, Bengaluru,
Karnataka-560103”
8. This Court,
vide order dated 14.11.2024,
issued summons of the suit to the defendant,
through all modes.
9. According to the report received by the Court,
the defendant was served with the ordinary
summons of the suit at its Delhi address on
19.12.2024. The defendant was also served with the
summons of the suit, through
e-mail and
WhatsApp,
on 21.12.2024.
-- 2 of 4 --
10. According to the tracking report, the
defendant was served with the summons of the suit,
through speed post, at its registered address on
27.12.2024.
11. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer
order dated 08.01.2025, as under:
“According to the report of the
process server, the defendant was
served at its Delhi address on
19.12.2024. According to the tracking
report, the defendant was served with
the summons of the suit,
through post,
on 25.12.2024 and 27.12.2024
respectively. The defendant has time
to file written statement till
26.01.2025. In case the defendant
does not file written statement
alongwith ‘
Admission / Denial of
Documents
on affidavit’ and
‘
Statement of Truth’ in accordance
with the provisions of ‘
The
Commercial Courts Act, 2015’, to
come up for PE on 24.02.2025.”
12. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention
of Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the defendant
was not served with the summons of the suit at its
registered address in terms of Order 29 Rule 2 CPC.
13. The defendant was duly served with the
summons of the suit at its registered address,
through speed post, on 27.12.2024.
14. Therefore, the time for filing of written
statement lapsed on 26.01.2025.
15. There is unexplained delay of 57 days in
filing of written statement. Besides challenging the
legality of service of summons, the defendant has
not furnished any reason much less than any
reasonable cause for non-filing of written statement
within statutory period of 30 days.
-- 3 of 4 --
16. However, the written statement was filed within
maximum period of 120 days and denial of leave to
the defendant to file written statement would cause
serious prejudice to him as the defendant would not be
able to effectively defend the suit. In
Robin Thapa vs.
Rohit Dora, (2019) 7 SCC 359, Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India emphasized the need of adjudication on
merits of case rather termination on default, as under:
“7. Ordinarily, a litigation is based on
adjudication on the merits of the
contentions of the parties. Litigation
should not be terminated by default,
either of the plaintiff or the defendant.
The cause of justice does require that as
far as possible, adjudication be done on
merits.”
17. Therefore, the application under Section 151
CPC seeking condonation of delay in filing of written
statement is allowed and consequently, the delay of 57
days in filing of written statement is condoned.
Though the delay in filing of written statement
occasioned loss of three months time of the trial of the
suit, however, the Court is not imposing any cost upon
the defendant with the rider that the defendant shall
not take any unnecessary adjournment and co-operate
in expeditious decision of the suit.
18. The plaintiff may file replication to the written
statement within two weeks with advance copy to the
defendant. The plaintiff and the defendant shall file
list of witnesses alongwith affidavits thereof within
two weeks from today with advance copy to the
opposite party. To come up for Case Management
Hearing on 15.05.2025.
Sanjay Sharma-II
DJ (Commercial Court)-03
Shahdara, KKD, Delhi
NK 28.04.2025
-- 4 of 4 --