Interim Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS (COMM) 643/23
Jai Durga Traders Pvt Ltd
Vs.
Ujjawal Maddan
01.04.2024
Present: Sh. Munish Chhoker and Ms. Jyoti, Ld. Counsels for plaintiff.
Sh. Akhil Pratap Singh, Ld. Counsel for defendant along with
defendant.
WS along with supporting affidavit, statement of truth, affidavit
of admission and denial of documents of the plaintiff and an application under
Order VIII Rule 1 CPC seeking condonation of delay in filing the WS filed.
Copy already supplied.
Application of the defendant under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC as
well as WS and the affidavit of admission and denial of documents of plaintiff
is not signed on each and every page.
At the request of ld. counsel for defendant, defendant has been
permitted to sign on each and every page and the defendant after seeking
permission of the court has signed the WS as well as affidavit of admission
and denial of documents and the application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC on
each and every page.
-- 1 of 3 --
It is also noticed that statement of truth filed by the defendant is
not as per Commercial Courts Act and the affidavit of admission and denial of
documents of plaintiff is also not as per Commercial Courts Act.
Ld. Counsel for defendant submits that they will file the same as
per Commercial Courts Act within 10 days.
Meanwhile, ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that they do not wish
to file reply to the application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC seeking
condonation of delay in filing the WS and would straightway advanced
arguments on the same.
Arguments on the application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC
heard.
It is stated in the application that the matter was listed on
27.02.2024, but, the court was on leave on that day and thereafter, the matter
was adjourned for 23.03.2024. The defendant had moved an application for
referring the matter to Mediation for settlement, however, the same was
misplaced by the Ahlmad and the application was re-filed on 05.03.2024. It is
stated that WS was not filed within 30 days, but, was within 90 days and, thus,
there is a delay of 31 days. Moreover, defendant has suffered losses in his
business and therefore, WS could not be filed within the stipulated period.
Prayer has been made to condone the delay in filing the WS.
Heard. Perused.
The defendant was served on 11.01.2024. WS has been filed on
28.03.2024. There is a delay of 47 days in filing the WS and not 31 days as
stated in the application. However, in view of the facts stated in the
application and the fact that WS is filed within the outer limit of 120 days,
-- 2 of 3 --
the delay in filing the WS is condoned subject to cost of Rs.3,000/- payable to
the plaintiff. Application is disposed off accordingly.
Plaintiff to file replication within 15 days with advance copy to
the opposite counsel. Meanwhile, parties are ready for settlement and
ld. counsel for both the parties submit that they wish to explore the possibility
of amicable settlement with the assistance of trained mediator. Accordingly,
matter is referred to the Mediation Centre Karkardooma Courts for exploring
the possibility of amicable settlement physically on filling the Mediation
Referral Form.
Both the parties are directed to report to the Incharge Mediation
Centre on 05.04.2024 at 12 o'clock noon.
Put up for awaiting the report from the Mediation Centre and for
admission and denial of documents and framing of issues on 26.04.2024.
(Kiran Bansal)
District Judge, Commercial Court-02,
Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi / 01.04.2024
-- 3 of 3 --