Quasar Airlines Pvt Ltd v. Shaurya Aeronautics Pvt Ltd & Another

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same stands allowed and the delay of 35 days in filing the present appeal stands condoned.

2. Application stands disposed of. O.A. 165/2024 (filed on behalf of the appellant for setting aside the order dated 31.07.2025) I.A. 37879/2024 (filed on behalf of the plaintiff for striking off defense)

3. The present Chamber Appeal is filed against the order dated KUMAR KAURAV 31.07.2024, whereby the learned Joint Registrar has rejected the prayer of the plaintiff to take on record the replication.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff contends that although the written statement was filed on 26.07.2021, however, there is no formal order on record acknowledging the same. She, therefore, contends that unless the written statement is formally taken on record, the right to file replication does not arise.

5. Learned counsel then contends that the plaintiff has filed I.A. 37879/2024 under Order VIII Rule 1 and Rule 8 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the striking off of the defendants’ defence and for passing a decree.

6. Conversely, learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1, argues that the order dated 14.03.2023 clearly reflects the fact that the written statement, along with the affidavit of admission/denial, had already been taken on record. He refers to various other orders and proceedings before the Joint statement was indeed placed on record on 26.07.2021. He thus contends that the replication should have been filed within the statutory period, and cannot be taken on record at this stage.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

8. In the instant case, although the Joint Registrar vide order dated 14.03.2023 records that the written statement and affidavit of admission/denial of documents on behalf of defendant No.1 are already taken on record, however, on perusal of the order sheets reveals that there is no formal order whereby, the written statement is formally taken on record.

9. It is thus seen unless the written statement is formally taken on record, the plaintiff’s right to file the replication would not commence.

10. Moreover, a coordinate bench of this Court has acknowledged the aforesaid legal position in SNS Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Ijaz Uddin[1]. In this case the Court clarified that the limitation for filing a replication under Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, which ordinarily begins within 30 days from the receipt of the written statement, must be interpreted contextually. The 30-day period for filing the replication commences only from the date the written statement is formally taken on record. Until such formal acceptance, there exists no obligation upon the plaintiff to file a replication. This interpretation ensures procedural fairness and prevents prejudice to the plaintiff arising from procedural delays attributable to the defendant.

11. This principle was reiterated in Aroti Sarkar & Anr. v. Ashok Sarkar & Ors. CS (OS) No. 823 of 2022, where the Court in that case, held that the timeline for filing replication did not begin to run since the costs imposed as a condition precedent in taking the written statement on record had not been paid by the defendants. The Court made it clear that until all such conditions are satisfied and the written statement is actually taken on record, no obligation arises on the plaintiff to respond by way of replication. Both decisions firmly establish that the limitation for filing a replication is intrinsically linked to the written statement being formally brought on record by the Court, and not merely from its physical filing or service.

12. Rule 5 of Chapter VII of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 reads as follows:

13. In terms of the Rules, even in a situation where the replication is filed belatedly, the Joint Registrar is obliged to place the matter for appropriate orders before the court and not by itself close the right of the plaintiff to file the replication, as has been done vide the impugned order.

14. Keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, the Court formally takes on record the written statement filed by defendant No.1 dated 26.07.2021.