This case pertains to procedural compliance under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The primary issue revolves around whether the plaintiffs' replication, filed with a minor procedural delay, could be condoned or whether it should be struck off as sought by the defendants.

Case Summary

Background:

• The litigation stems from summons issued to the defendants in a commercial suit, leading to delayed filing of written statements by the defendants.
• Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed replications, albeit marginally beyond the prescribed timeline.
• Both parties filed applications:
  • The plaintiffs sought condonation of delay.
  • The defendants sought to strike off the replications.

Brief Facts of the Case:

• Summons were issued on October 6, 2023.
• Defendants filed their written statements on January 30, 2024, delayed by 88 days, which were condoned on February 14, 2024, subject to costs.
• Plaintiffs were required to file replications by March 14, 2024.
• Replications were filed on March 15, 2024, delayed by one day due to personal difficulties faced by the plaintiffs' representative.
• Defects in the filing were notified on March 19, 2024, and cleared the same day.
• Further objections raised on March 21, 2024, were notified to plaintiffs on March 27, 2024.
• Plaintiffs filed applications for condonation of delay on April 2, 2024.
• Defendants argued procedural delays violated strict timelines, seeking to strike off the replications.

Issues Raised:

• Can a replication filed marginally beyond the prescribed timeline be condoned under procedural rules?
• Does failure to file condonation applications within seven days render the replication non-est?
• Should procedural defects in replication filing lead to striking it off despite compliance with substantive timelines?

Plaintiff Submission:

• Delay of one day in filing the replication was caused by personal difficulties and is excusable.
• Procedural defects were cured within the time prescribed by Chapter IV Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
• Defendants, having filed their written statements with an 88-day delay, lack standing to challenge plaintiffs' marginal delay.

Defendant Submission:

• Replications filed without notarization and attestation were procedurally non-compliant.
• Strict adherence to procedural timelines is required under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
• Applications for condonation of delay were filed beyond permissible time, necessitating striking off the replications.

Judgments Referred:

• A.P. Distributors v. OK Play India Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1512: Procedural delays in filing written statements can be condoned if filings comply substantively with rules.
• COSCO (India) Ltd. v. Paramsukh Nirman Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9633: Defects in procedural filings can be cured within an aggregate of 30 days under Chapter IV Rule 3.
• Friends Motel Pvt. Ltd. v. Shreeved Consultancy LLP, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2072: Filing beyond the statutory period without valid justification cannot be condoned.
• Atlantech Online Services v. Google India Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5476: Excessive delays in filing replications beyond the statutory period justify striking off pleadings.

Reasoning of the Judge:

• The Court held that procedural defects, such as filing condonation applications beyond seven days, are curable under Chapter IV Rule 3, provided substantive timelines are adhered to.
• The replication, filed within the outer limit of 45 days, though delayed by one day, was re-filed and defects cured promptly.
• Striking off replications for minor procedural defects would contradict the principle of resolving disputes on merits.

Decision:
Plaintiffs' applications (I.A. 7655/2024 and I.A. 7656/2024) seeking condonation of delay in filing replications were allowed. Defendants' applications (I.A. 32131/2024 and I.A. 32934/2024) seeking striking off the replications were dismissed.Concluding Note:This decision underscores the judiciary's inclination to prioritize substantive justice over procedural technicalities. While procedural rules are essential for efficiency and fairness, minor delays, if rectified within permissible limits, should not obstruct the merits of a case.

Case Title: Neeraj Saran Srivastava & Anr. Vs. Loudon Owen & Ors.
Date of Order: January 20, 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 686/2023
Neutral Citation: 2025 DHC 283
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539