Zenith Vipers Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Jasmeet Singh Marwah

1. Petitioner seeks another opportunity to file written statement.

2. A very short point is involved.

3. A suit for recovery of Rs.54 lacs with interest was filed by respondent Mr. Jasmeet Singh Marwah, way back in the year 2018.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner herein, who is the sole defendant in said suit, was served with summons on 26.04.2018 and entered its appearance before the learned Trial Court on 02.05.2018.

5. According to the defendant, complete copy of the plaint had not been received by them. Fact remains that, instead of filing any written statement, they filed multiple applications.

6. These applications were under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, under Section 340 Cr.P.C., under Section 33, 35 and 38 of Indian Stamps Act, 1899 and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.

7. Application moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed by the CM(M) 900/2025 2 learned Trial Court on 03.09.2019 and since its application under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC was also pending, learned Trial Court deemed it fit to grant defendant another 15 days time to file written statement.

8. During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness, submitted that in such application moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, they had simply taken objection to the effect that the suit had not been instituted by a duly authorized person. She also, very fairly, admits that in said application, they had not even taken any plea that there was an Arbitration Agreement between the parties.

9. Fact remains that after the dismissal of the abovesaid application, the defendant moved another application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and did not file written statement, within the time granted by the learned Trial Court. Interestingly, the plaintiff gave concession to the defendant and stated before the learned Trial Court that he would have no objection if the time is further extended for filing written statement by the defendant.

10. Despite that, defendant did not file written statement and, instead, attempted to pursue with his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in which he also came up with submission that there was an Arbitration Agreement between the parties. Defendant also moved separate application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking reference of disputes to Arbitrator. However, vide order dated 07.02.2024, learned Trial Court dismissed both the abovesaid applications.

11. Apparently, since the defendant had participated in the proceedings, the learned Trial Court was of the view that the defendant had waived his right to seek reference to Arbitration.

12. Be that as it may, fact remains that such order dated 07.02.2024 has CM(M) 900/2025 3 attained finality as it was never challenged by defendant.

13. Defendant, however, felt that after the dismissal of the abovesaid application, it got fresh lease of life and, therefore, the learned Trial Court should have permitted further time to file written statement.

14. Such request is completely erroneous and misplaced.

15. It rather seems that the learned Trial Court had been extra-benevolent and generous to the defendant and though mere filing of multiple applications, including an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, could not have given any right or handle to defendant to seeks extension of time, fact remains that not once but twice, the time was extended for filing of written statement. Such opportunity, which was never availed, has gone begging.