Dismissed¶28

Detailing Devils Pvt. Ltd. v. Nitin Jaitly

Delhi HC19 Aug 2025CM(M)-IPD/34/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 petition dismissed; replication right closed by Trial Court upheld; Commercial Courts Act 2015 speedy trial object; CS(COMM) 6635/2024 Detailing Devils India Private Limited v. Nitin Jaitly; District Judge Rohini Courts order 22.04.2025; replication e-filed 28.01.2025, deadline 05.02.2025, non-appearance 06.02.2025; negligence and lack of diligence; evidence affidavits filed; matter before Local Commissioner for recording of evidence; allowing relief would set back trial; pending applications disposed; Delhi High Court IPD; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.; decision 19.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

The non-filing of the replication before the Trial Court on 06.02.2025 and the non-appearance on behalf of the Petitioner shows negligence; the explanation regarding a local holiday failed to persuade the Court. ¶21

Detailing Devils Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nitin Jaitly — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order dated 22.04.2025 closing the Petitioner's right to file its replication in the Commercial Suit ought to be set aside / interfered with by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶11

Court's answer

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner's averment that it missed filing the replication by a few minutes on 22.04.2025 is unsubstantiated — there is nothing on record to substantiate it.

¶22

Key takeaways

Assuming the replication was prepared on 28.01.2025, the Petitioner failed to explain its inaction between 28.01.2025 and 22.04.2025 despite being granted sufficient time; the impugned order closing the right to file replication is in consonance with the object of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, i.e., speedy trial.ratio¶26
The Petitioner's delay and inaction in having the petition listed for four months (until August 2025), while it had already filed evidence affidavits and the matter was ripe for trial before the Local Commissioner, shows complete lack of diligence; pursuing the petition is an afterthought.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.) dismisses CM(M)-IPD 34/2025, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Detailing Devils Pvt Ltd (plaintiff in CS(COMM) 6635/2024, Detailing Devils India Private Limited v. Nitin Jaitly) seeking setting aside of the District Judge, Rohini Courts' order dated 22.04.2025 closing its right to file replication. The Court held: (i) failure to file the replication by the 05.02.2025 deadline and non-appearance on 06.02.2025 showed negligence, and the local-holiday explanation failed to persuade; (ii) the claim of missing the filing by a few minutes on 22.04.2025 was unsubstantiated; (iii) the petitioner failed to explain its inaction from 28.01.2025 to 22.04.2025 despite sufficient time, and the closure of the replication right was in consonance with the object of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (speedy trial); (iv) the four-month delay in pursuing the petition, while evidence affidavits stood filed and the matter was ripe before the Local Commissioner, showed lack of diligence and rendered the petition an afterthought. Finding no ground for interference — allowing the relief would set back the trial — the Court dismissed the petition; pending applications were disposed of.

¶1

$~43

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M)-IPD 34/2025 & CM 205-207/2025 DETAILING DEVILS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Asav Rajan, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

NITIN JAITLY .....Respondent Through: None

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 19.08.2025

¶10

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed impugning the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi [‘Trial Court’] in CS(COMM) 6635/2024 titled Detailing Devils India Private Limited v. Nitin Jaitly [‘Commercial Suit’] closing the right of the Petitioner [i.e., the plaintiff in the said Commercial Suit] to file its replication in the said Commercial Suit.

¶11

Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that there was a marginal delay in filing the physical copy of the replication on 22.04.2025 and therefore, the impugned order dated 22.04.2025 ought to be set aside.

¶12

2.1. He states that though this petition was filed with the registry of the Court on 05.05.2025; however, thereafter, it has remained pending in the registry. He states that due to the change of the counsel, the filing could not be pursued and therefore, the petition could not be listed earlier. 2.2. He states that in the meantime, the next stage in the Commercial Suit is scheduled for listing before the Local Commissioner, for recording of

¶13

CM(M)-IPD 34/2025 Page 1 of 3

¶14

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 25/08/2025 at 11:47:46

¶15

evidence.

¶16

2.3. He states that the Petitioner (i.e., the plaintiff) has already filed its evidence affidavits in compliance with the Trial Court’s order dated 22.04.2025.

¶17

2.4. He fairly admits that taking the replication on record at this stage would entail re-filing of the evidence affidavits to include the averments sought to be raised by way of this replication.

¶18

This Court has considered the submissions of the Petitioner/plaintiff.

¶19

The right to file replication was granted by the Trial Court to the plaintiff vide order dated 03.12.2024.

¶20

It is stated in the petition that the replication was e-filed on 28.01.2025; however, the learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly admits that he is not aware if the replication was served on the defendant.

¶21

The replication was to be filed on or before 05.02.2025. However, on 06.02.2025, when the matter was listed before the Trial Court there was no appearance on behalf of the Petitioner. The submission of the Petitioner that the Petitioner’s counsel was unaware that the matters listed on 05.02.2025 will be taken up on 06.02.2025 due a local holiday being declared, fails to persuade this Court. The non-filing of the replication before the Trial Court on 06.02.2025 and the non-appearance on behalf of the Petitioner shows negligence.

¶22

It is stated that when the matter was next listed before the Trial Court on 22.04.2025, the Petitioner missed filing the replication by few minutes leading to the Trial Court passing the impugned order closing the right to file replication. There is nothing on record to substantiate the aforesaid averment.

¶23

CM(M)-IPD 34/2025 Page 2 of 3

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 25/08/2025 at 11:47:46

¶26

Assuming the replication was prepared on 28.01.2025, the Petitioner has failed to explain its inaction in filing the replication before the Trial Court between 28.01.2025 to 22.04.2025. The Petitioner was granted sufficient time to file its replication. In these facts, the impugned order of the Trial Court closing the right to file replication is in consonance of the object of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 i.e., speedy trial.

¶27

Pertinently, delay and inaction of the Petitioner in having this petition listed before this Court after four (4) months in August 2025 shows complete lack of diligence. As noted above, the Petitioner has already filed its evidence affidavits and the matter is ripe for trial before the Local Commissioner. These facts show that the Petitioner had in fact proceeded with the evidence stage and now pursuing this petition is an afterthought. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no ground for interfering in the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the Trial Court, especially since the matter is now listed before the Local Commissioner for recording of evidence and allowing the relief sought by the Petitioner/plaintiff at this stage will set back the trial.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is held to be bereft of merits and is dismissed.

¶29

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶30

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶31

AUGUST 19, 2025/ msh/MG

¶32

CM(M)-IPD 34/2025 Page 3 of 3

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 25/08/2025 at 11:47:46

Detailing Devils Pvt. Ltd. v. Nitin Jaitly

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Detailing Devils Pvt. Ltd. v. Nitin Jaitly

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

University of Guelph Vs Controller of Patents and Designs

Bulgari S.P.A Vs Aanchal Jain Trading as Izzari Jewels

Keva Flavours Private Limited Vs Asian Chem Works Privated Limited and Anr.

Dabur India Limited Vs Real Hindustan Beverages

Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Bureau of India (Pmbi) Erstwhile - Bureau of Pharma Public Vs Laurel Life Science Pvt. Ltd.

Star India Private Limited Vs Mr Tajkir Mohammad Tanvir and Ors.