MANU/DE/2835/2019

Equivalent/Neutral Citation: 2019:DHC :4072

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (COMM) 1303/2018
Decided On: 20.08.2019
Indian Style Wrestling Association of India and Ors. Vs. Wrestling Federation of India
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Jayant Nath, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Ashutosh Kumar and Palash Maheshwari, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
DECISION
Jayant Nath, J.
OA No. 89/2019 and IA No. 11193/2019
1. This OA No. 89/2019 is filed by the defendant under Rule 5 of Chapter II read with
Rules 14 and 16 of Chapter I of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules 2018 against
the order/judgment dated 15.07.2019 passed by the learned Joint Registrar in IA No.
6721/2019.
2 . By the impugned order the learned Joint Registrar dismissed the application i.e. IA
No. 6721/2019 for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The learned
Joint Registrar noted that the defendant is seeking condonation of delay of 83 days in
filing the written statement. As per the CPC, it was noted, the defendant had to file the
written statement within the statutory period of 30 days but not later than 120 days.
Summons of the suit were served on the defendant on 20.12.2018. The impugned order
further notes that as per the application filed by the defendant various grounds are
given for the delay including that a complete set of the documents was not received. It
is also stated that the draft written statement was said to be ready in the last week of
March 2019 but the same was filed in April, 2019. It is also stated in the application
that the study of the plaint, IAs and documents took longer time and the counsel was
engaged in various professional work. It is also noted that the written statement was
filed on 15.04.2019 but due to objection, it was re-filed on 01.05.2019. There is no
application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing of the written statement. Based on
the above, the application was dismissed.
3. On the last date of hearing, namely, 08.08.2019, this court had noted the submission
of the learned counsel for the defendant that he would take steps to file appropriate
application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the written statement. The said
application has now been filed which is IA No. 11193/2019.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent has vehemently opposed the
present appeal and the application. He states that in terms of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, the
defendant was obliged to file written statement within 30 days. In case of a delay, the

16-05-2024 (Page 1 of 5) www.manupatra.com Wittons Law

court has discretion of maximum 120 days to grant time to the defendant. He states that
the written statement was actually re-filed on 01.05.2019 which would be the
appropriate date for filing of the written statement which is beyond the period of 120
days from the date of service of summons on the defendant. He further states that the
reliance of the defendant on Chapter IV Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side)
Rules is misplaced as no rules can prescribe a time beyond 120 days for filing of the
written statement. He also relies upon Section 16(3) and Section 21 of the Commercial
Court Act 2015 to plead that in case there are any rules which are contrary to the
Commercial Courts Act, the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act would apply. To
support his above submission, he relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this
court in the case of HPL (India) Ltd. & Ors. vs. QRG Enterprises & Ors.,
MANU/DE/0347/2017 : 238 (2017) DLT 123.
5 . Order 8 Rule 1 CPC as amended read by the Commercial Courts Act reads as
follows:-
"ORDER VIII: [WRITTEN STATEMENT, SET-OFF AND COUNTER-CLAIM]
1 . Written statement-The defendant shall, within thirty days from the
date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his
defence.
Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement
within the said period of 30 days, he shall be allowed to file the written
statement on such other day as may be specified by the court, for
reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the
court deems fit, but which shall not be later than 120 days from the
date of service of summons, and on expiry of 120 days from the date of
service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the
written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to
be taken on record."
6. Hence, the defendant has an outer limit of 120 days to file the written statement at
best.
7 . Chapter IV Rule 3 CPC of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules reads as
follows:-
"CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF PLEADINGS, OTHER DOCUMENTS AND
MAINTENANCE OF CASE FILES
xxx
3 . Defective pleading/document.-(a) If on scrutiny, the pleading/document is
found defective, the Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar, In-charge of the
Filing Counter, shall specify the objections, a copy of which will be kept for the
Court Record, and return for amendment and re-filing within a time not
exceeding 7 days at a time and 30 days in aggregate. (b) If the
pleading/document is not taken back for amendment within the time allowed
under sub-rule (a), it shall be registered and listed before the Court for its
dismissal for non-prosecution. (c) If the pleading/document is filed beyond the
time allowed under sub-rule (a) the pleading/document must be accompanied
with an application for condonation of delay in re-filing of the said
pleading/document. (d) Any party aggrieved by any order made by the

16-05-2024 (Page 2 of 5) www.manupatra.com Wittons Law

 Registrar under this Rule may, within fifteen days of the making of such order,
appeal against it to the Judge in Chambers.
xxx"
8 . Under the aforesaid Rule, if on scrutiny the pleadings/document is found to be
defective, the same has to be returned for removal of the objection and re-filing within
a time not exceeding 7 days at a time and 30 days in aggregate. If there is a delay in
re-filing beyond the said period, the matter under Chapter IV Rule 3(b) would be listed
before court for appropriate orders.
9 . The Division Bench of this court in HPL (India) Ltd. & Ors. vs. QRG Enterprises &
Ors. (supra) in the above context held as follows:-
"25. Section 16 of the said Act is also important in this discussion. Sub-section
(1) of Section 16 makes it clear that the provisions of the CPC shall, in their
application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a specified value,
stands amended in the manner as specified in the Schedule to the said Act.
Sub-section (2) makes it clear that the Commercial Division and the
Commercial Court shall follow the provisions of the CPC, 1908, as amended by
this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified
Value. Subsection (3) stipulates that where any provision of any rule of the
jurisdictional High Court or any amendment to the CPC, by the State
Government is in conflict with the provisions of the CPC, as amended by the
said Act, the provisions of the CPC, as amended by the said Act, would prevail.
On a conjoint reading of Sections 16 and 21 of the said Act, it appears that
wherever amendments have been specified in the said Act to the CPC, the same
shall prevail. In other respects, the CPC is to be followed by the Commercial
Division and the Commercial Court. If there is any conflict with the provisions
of the said Act with any provisions contained in any other law for the time
being in force, the provisions of the said Act would have overriding effect."
10. There can be no dispute on the proposition stated by the learned counsel for the
plaintiff that the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 would prevail in case
there is conflict in the provisions of the said Act vis-a-vis the CPC or Delhi High Court
(Original Side) Rules.
11. The question is: Is there any conflict in the facts and circumstances of the case?
Order 8 Rule 1 CPC requires that the written statement shall be filed within the statutory
period. The CPC, in my opinion, does not deal with the situation where the Registry puts
an objection on the manner in which the said written statement has been filed.
12. The facts of the case are that the written statement was filed by the defendant on
15.04.2019 with an advance copy on the plaintiff. The objection taken by the Registry
did not go to the root of the matter. The only objection taken was that the
document/reply/written statement be filed separately. Meaning thereby, that the
defendant had filed the aforenoted three pleadings/replies/etc. with a common index.
The Registry asked that instead of a common index, they may be filed separately with
separate index. The defendant re-filed the same as directed by the Registry on
01.05.2019.
13. IA No. 11193/2019 states that the delay took place in re-filing the said written
statement on account of the fact that the clerk of the counsel was out of town on
account of a wedding in the family and hence, there was delay in re-filing the matter.

16-05-2024 (Page 3 of 5) www.manupatra.com Wittons Law

14. In my opinion, Chapter IV Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules
deals with an entirely different situation unlike under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. Once the
written statement is filed and there are some minor defects as in the present case, it
cannot be said that there is no filing of the written statement within the stipulated
period stated under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. There is a material difference between filing a
pleading and re-filing the same after removal of defects. (Reference S.R. Kulkarni vs.
Birla VXL Ltd. MANU/DE/0496/1998 : 1998 RLR 519)
15. As far as IA No. 11193/2019 is concerned, sufficient cause is stated for the delay in
re-filing of the written statement. The said application is liable to the allowed. Ordered
accordingly.
16. As far as the merits of IA No. 6721/2019 are concerned, the defendant has stated
the following reasons for the delay in filing the written statement:-
"4. That however it was later found that the plaintiffs had not supply the
complete set of documents In particular from pages 294 to 474. For which e-
mall dated 25.12.2018 was sent on behalf of defendant for the said documents,
which were also replied vide e-mail dated 26.12.2018 and later the said
documents from page 294 to 474 was In fact receive from the plaintiffs
counsel.
5 . That the officials of the defendant were Involved In conducting the
Traditional/Indian Style Wrestling at Pune on 29 &30 December, 2018, which
was so completed keeping In view order dated 21.12.2018 passed by this
Hon'ble Court In I.A. No. 17615/2018 In CS (COMM.) NO. 1303 OF 2018.
6 . That thereafter the plaint/I.As and all the documents were studied by the
defendant, which has taken longer time. The counsel f or the WFI had also been
engaged In various professional works Including outstation matters. The said
visits of the counsel of the defendant had further delayed in preparing and
finalizing the Written Statement.
7. That for sake of preparing the written statement even older documents were
required apart from several other documents. Thus in collecting all the
documents too time has been spent.
8 . That thereafter there has been many conferences for the finalization of the
draft of the written statement, which was almost ready in the last week of
March, 2019. And ultimately after completing/finalizing the draft of W.S. could
in fact got ready to be filed now in April, 2019.
9 . That in view of the circumstances the delay has been circumstantial and
unintentional and the same therefore could not be filed within 30 days, but, it
has taken longer period and the 120 days period gets expire on 18.04.2019,
within which period the defendant can file the W.S.
10. That the reasons for delay in filing the documents are bonafide and has
been taken in order to answer the plaint of the plaintiff effectively and therefore
the delay of 83 days may be condoned in the interest of justice as the
defendant is not prejudiced even otherwise as interim order dated 21.12.2018
has been passed in their favour and further got extended on 27.03.2019 by this
Hon'ble Court, hence the delay may be condoned and the W.S. may be accepted
and be taken on record for decision of the case on its merits."

16-05-2024 (Page 4 of 5) www.manupatra.com Wittons Law

17. In my opinion, the above grounds would constitute sufficient cause to condone the
delay in filing the written statement beyond 30 days.
18. The delay in filing and re-filing the written statement is condoned subject to costs
of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid within two weeks from today.
19. Impugned order is set aside. The appeal stands disposed of.
CS (COMM) 1303/2018
The plaintiff may file replication within four weeks from today.
Pleadings be completed in all the pending applications within four weeks.
Interim orders to continue.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

16-05-2024 (Page 5 of 5) www.manupatra.com Wittons Law