Allowed¶27

Aaj Supply Chain Management Pvt. Ltd. Formerly Known as Aaj Enterprises Private Limited v. Skylark Express (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC17 Sept 2025CM(M)/1827/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CM(M) 1827/2025; Order VIII Rule 1 CPC; belated written statement; extension of time; commercial court; cost Rs. 25,000/-; summons served 19.06.2024; illegible paperbook/plaint copy; consent-based indulgence; decide on merits not defaults; Delhi High Court; Girish Kathpalia J.; Aaj Supply Chain Management Pvt. Ltd. v. Skylark Express (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside to the extent of dismissal of the application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC; petition allowed with consent of both sides, subject to payment of Rs. 25,000/- as cost to the respondent/plaintiff within one week, failing which the Written Statement shall be taken off the record; accompanying applications disposed of. ¶27

Aaj Supply Chain Management Pvt. Ltd. Formerly Known as Aaj Enterprises Private Limited Vs Skylark Express (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the Commercial Court's dismissal of the petitioner/defendant's application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC should be set aside so that the Written Statement filed on 05.11.2024 is taken on record.

¶13

Court's answer

Applying the cardinal principle of justice that disputes, as far as possible, should be decided on merits instead of defaults, especially where the defaulting party can be burdened with a cost to compensate the other party, the courts can extend indulgence; here the Written Statement had already been filed.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

With consent of both sides, the impugned order is set aside to the extent of dismissal of the application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, and the present petition is allowed subject to the petitioner paying cost to the respondent/plaintiff.

¶27

Key takeaways

If the cost of Rs. 25,000/- is not paid within one week, the Written Statement shall be taken off the record.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Girish Kathpalia, J.; oral judgment dated 17.09.2025) in CM(M) 1827/2025: with consent of both sides, the Court set aside the Commercial Court's order dated 14.07.2025 dismissing the defendant's application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, permitting the Written Statement (filed on 05.11.2024 after summons were served on 19.06.2024) to remain on record, subject to payment of Rs. 25,000/- as cost to the plaintiff within one week, failing which the Written Statement shall be taken off the record. The Court reiterated that disputes should, as far as possible, be decided on merits rather than defaults, especially where the defaulting party can compensate the other side with costs. Accompanying applications disposed of.

¶1

$~92

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 17.09.2025

¶4

- CM(M) 1827/2025, CM APPL. 58843/2025 & CM APPL. 58842/2025

¶5

AAJ SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS AAJ ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED

¶6

.....Petitioner

¶7

Through: Mr. Mohit Aggarwal and Ms. Pooja Saini, Advocates.

¶8

versus

¶9

SKYLARK EXPRESS (DELHI) PVT. LTD .....Respondent

¶10

Through: Ms. Snigdha Singh, Advocate.

¶11

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶12

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶13

Petitioner has assailed order dated 14.07.2025 of learned Commercial Court, whereby application filed by petitioner under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC was dismissed.

¶14

From the impugned order it appears that on 19.06.2024, summons of the suit were served on the petitioner/defendant, but he filed the Written Statement on 05.11.2024 along with an application under Order VIII Rule 1

¶15

CM(M) 1827/2025

¶16

Page 1 of 4 pages

¶17

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.09.17 14:32:07 -07'00'

¶18

CPC, explaining that on 03.09.2024, when on service of summons counsel for petitioner/defendant appeared in the trial court, the learned Judge being on leave, Ahlmad of the court recorded his plea that the copy of plaint and annexures were illegible and counsel for the present respondent/plaintiff assured to supply a legible copy. But the legible copy was supplied only on 05.10.2024 and the Written Statement was filed on 05.11.2024. Learned trial court took a view that it is the petitioner/defendant who should have made efforts to seek copies of the paperbook by moving a proper application after service of summons.

¶19

Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant submits that it is not a case where on 03.09.2024, the present respondent/plaintiff claimed that legible paperbook had already been supplied and an additional paperbook would also be provided; since had that been the case, the petitioner/defendant would not have been able to claim benefit of belated supply of the paperbook. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant submits that the present respondent/plaintiff did not supply the paperbook immediately or soon after 03.09.2024 but supplied the same much later on 05.10.2024, so that the period of 120 days after service of summons also would elapse. Further, it is contended by learned counsel for petitioner/defendant now that Written Statement has already been filed, it would be fair and justifiable if the same is taken on record.

¶20

Learned counsel for respondent appearing on advance intimation

CM(M) 1827/2025

Page 2 of 4 pages

accepts notice and does not dispute that there is nothing on record to show that what was supplied to the petitioner/defendant on 05.10.2024, was a duplicate/additional set of paperbook. However, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff strongly contends that there is nothing on record to explain as to why the petitioner/defendant after being served with the summons on 19.06.2024 stayed silent and did not write any letter to the respondent/plaintiff or the counsel, requesting for legible copies; not even any application for legible copies was filed formally.

¶25

After addressing partly, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff on instructions of her client submits that in the interest of expeditious disposal of the suit, the respondent/plaintiff has no objection if this petition is allowed subject to heavy cost.

¶26

Considering the overall circumstances discussed above and also keeping in mind the cardinal principle of justice that disputes, as far as possible should be decided on merits instead of defaults, especially where the defaulting party can be burdened with a cost to compensate the other party, the courts can extend indulgence. In the present case, as mentioned above, the Written Statement has already been filed.

¶27

Therefore, with consent of both sides, the impugned order to the extent of dismissal of application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is set aside and the present petition is allowed subject to the present petitioner paying

CM(M) 1827/2025

Page 3 of 4 pages

the cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the present respondent/plaintiff within one week. It is made clear that if the cost is not paid within one week from today, the Written Statement shall be taken off the record. The accompanying applications also stand disposed of.

¶32

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4 GIRISH 5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155 KATHPALIA 70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e2 6fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.09.17 14:31:24 -07'00'

¶33

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶34

SEPTEMBER 17, 2025/ dr

¶35

CM(M) 1827/2025

¶36

Page 4 of 4 pages

Aaj Supply Chain Management Pvt. Ltd. Formerly Known as Aaj Enterprises Private Limited v. Skylark Express (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aaj Supply Chain Management Pvt. Ltd. Formerly Known as Aaj Enterprises Private Limited v. Skylark Express (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeta Malhotra Vs M/S Oditi Appliances LLP

Mamta Mehra Vs Parveen & Ors.

Pramod K. Saini Vs O. P. Bhargava Thru Lrs

M/S. Seven Seas Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sh. Sanjeev @ Deepak Gaur

Nirmla Devi Vs M/S Moti Lal and Sons

M/S Punjab Kesari Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

M/S Adinath International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Manoj Kumar Gupta

Sh. Surinder Singh Since Deceased through His Lrs. & Anr. Vs Sh. Jora Singh & Ors.

Neeta Malhotra Vs M/S Oditi Appliances LLP

Pramod K. Saini Vs O. P. Bhargava Thru Lrs

Gaurav Arora Vs Kamla Sachdeva

Qayyum Khan through Attorney Holder Mohd Ali Vs Yakub Khan and Ors.

K.K. Khullar and Ors. Vs Manoj Bansal

Omveer Balhara Vs Vijay Singh & Anr.