Allowed

M/S Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Mohan Singh Parmar & Anr.

Delhi HC16 Jan 2025CM(M)/77/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an exempt application after dismissing the writ petition challenging the premature closure of the right to file a written statement. Directing trial court to decide pending condonation application.

What did the court decide?

Set aside allowed subject to exceptions; DM impugned order; GC decided pending application for condonation of delay before proceeding to record evidence.

M/S Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. Vs Mohan Singh Parmar… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~70

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 77/2025

¶4

M/S BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ishaan George, Mr. Archit Jain and Dr. Rukma George, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

MOHAN SINGH PARMAR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Alok Tripathi, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Varun Mishra, SPC with Ms. Shreya Sud and Ms. Chetanya Kapoor, Advocates for R-2.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R

¶8

% 16.01.2025 CM APPL. 2463/2025 EXEMPTION

¶9

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

The application stands disposed of.

¶11

CM(M) 77/2025 & CM APPL. 2462/2025 INTERIM RELIEF

¶12

The present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for seeking to set aside the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the trial court whereby the right of the petitioner to file the written statement has been closed.

¶13

Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the grace period until, 13.11.2024 for filing the written statement was allowed by law but the trial court prematurely closed the petitioner’s right to file the written statement without offering an opportunity to file application for condonation of delay.

¶14

It has been further submitted that period stipulated in Order VIII is directory and not mandatory, and therefore, petitioner has since filed an

¶15

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/01/2025 at 15:08:07

¶16

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay along with the written statement but the said application has not been disposed of by the trial court and rather the matter has been listed for PE.

¶17

Order VIII Rule 1 CPC provides that defendant shall file the written statement within a period of 30 days but if he fails to file the written statement within the said period of 30 days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day as may be specified by the court for reasons to be recorded in writing but which shall not be later than 90 days from the date of service of summons.

¶18

The perusal of the impugned order dated 13.11.2024 reveals that petitioner was served on 02.08.2024. No written statement was filed within the statutory period of 90 days as provided under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, which expired on 01.11.2024, and therefore, the trial court rightly proceeded to close the right of the petitioner to file the written statement.

¶19

Thus in non-commercial cases, the statute provides maximum period of 90 days from the date of service of summons for filing the written statement and not 120 days as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

There is per se no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court.

¶21

I therefore find no merit in the present petition. Petition is dismissed but with direction to the trial court to decide the application for condonation of delay, if any, already filed by the petitioner before proceeding to record the evidence.

¶22

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶23

JANUARY 16, 2025/ib

¶24

M/S Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Mohan Singh Parmar & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Mohan Singh Parmar & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harpreet Vs Anil Sawhney & Anr.

Vineet Dawer Vs Kauten Kraft & Ors.

Shyam Stinder Dubey Vs Santosh Kumari (Since Deceased) through Her Legal Heirs & Ors.

Mohit Karak Vs Ashok Kumar Khetan

Sushil Ansal Vs Amit Kumar

Sushil Ansal Vs Suresh Pratap

Kartar Singh Deceased through His Lrs Naresh Kumar Vs Sajjan Singh & Ors.

Sushil Ansal Vs Surendra Pratap Singh and Anr.

Punam Raj & Anr. Vs Rajat Tyagi

Harpreet Vs Anil Sawhney & Anr.

Vineet Dawer Vs Kauten Kraft & Ors.

Sushil Kumar Vs Anuradha Kashyap

Sunil Mehdiratta Vs S.P. Advisors Pvt. Ltd.