Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 9th November, 2020
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Namrata Mukim, Standing Counsel with Ms. Garima Jindal, Advocate and Mr. Y.P. Singh, AE, KBZ.
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done by video conferencing.
2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 19th October 2020 passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, by which the written statement which was filed by the Petitioner-Corporation was not taken on record.
3. The order arises out of a suit for recovery filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent for sum of Rs. 10,42,39/-. As per the summons placed on record, the same was served upon the Corporation at S.P. Zone, on 8th November 2019, however, the correct zone was the Karol Bagh Zone. The written statement was filed on 3rd September 2020, along with an application for condonation of delay. The ld. District Judge however, held that the 120day period had lapsed, and it had no power to condone the same.
4. Ms. Namrata Mukim, ld. Counsel for the Corporation, submits that the time when the summons was received in the Karol Bagh Zone was much later, 2020:DHC:3220 and because of the pandemic and lockdown, the Corporation should be allowed to file its written statement.
5. In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SCG Contracts India Private Limited v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors. [(2019) 12 SCC 210], read with Sagufa Ahmed and Ors. v. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. [Civil Appeal 3007-08 of 2020], the period of 120 days, to file the written statement, is not extendable. Moreover, the benefit of the pandemic and the lockdown can only be given if the initial 30-day period falls after the lockdown commenced, and not otherwise. The relevant portion of SCG Contracts (supra) is set out below:
6. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated this principle in the judgment of Sagufa Ahmed (supra), the relevant portion of which reads as under:
7. This Court has also considered the same question in C.R.P. 63/2020 Shyam Sunder v. Shikha Arora & Anr., wherein vide order dated 23rd September, 2020, it has been held that the provisions of Order VIII CPC provide a complete timeline and scheme for filing of the written statement. The non-filing of the written statement within the time prescribed has consequences in law for parties. It has been further held that even the lockdown due to the pandemic can only extend the original period of limitation and not the period up to which delay can be condoned.
8. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner relies upon an order passed by this Court in North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. M/S Dhingra Construction, CM (M) 136/2020 wherein, the Court had permitted the written statement to be taken on record, subject to imposition of costs. A perusal of the said order shows that the written statement in the said case was filed within the 120 day period and not beyond 120 days. Hence the said order would have no application in the present case.
9. Therefore, in view of the above settled position in law, the impugned order does not deserve to be interfered with in the present case. The view of the Trial Court is correct and in accordance with law.
10. Needless to add that, though the Corporation may not have filed its written statement, it can be allowed to join the proceedings here onwards. Non-filing of a written statement would not deprive the Corporation of its right to join the proceedings including cross examination of witnesses of the Plaintiff and addressing final arguments.
11. The petition, along with all pending applications, is disposed of in these terms.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE NOVEMBER 9, 2020 Rahul / A