- In Cosco International Pvt. Ltd. v. Jagat Singh Dugar (2022), Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani ruled that Chapter VII Rule 3 only prohibits a written statement on record filed without an accompanying affidavit of admission/denial of documents as it does not amount to the Non-Est filing. Furthermore, it stated that filing the written statement and taking it on record are separate and distinct. Additionally, it was observed that the same would constitute a defect that would need to be corrected when the Registry brought it to the party's knowledge.
- In this instance, the appellant filed an action under Chapter II Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court Rules, 2018, and Section 151 of the CPC. The appellant claimed that its written statement, accompanied by an affidavit, was filed within 120 days of receiving the summons. However, the deposition of admission/denial of documents was not filed. Furthermore, it was argued that the Joint Registrar had drawn the conclusion as there was a three-month delay in filing the affidavit of admission/denial of documents, which exceeded the prescribed period (120 days) for filing the written statement. Thus, the written statement itself could not be taken on record.
- Chapter VII Rule 3 of CPC prohibits a written statement on record filed without an accompanying affidavit of admission/denial of documents as it does not constitute a Non-Est filing.
- Chapter II Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court Rules, 2018, states that any person aggrieved by any order made by the Registrar under Rule 3 of this Chapter may appeal to the Judge in Chambers within fifteen days of such order.
- Section 151 of the CPC states that nothing in this Code shall be construed to impair or otherwise influence the Court's inherent authority to issue such orders as may be required for the objectives of justice or to avoid abuse of the Court's process.
- Order V Rule 1(1) states that when a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defendant, requiring him to appear and answer the claim and file a written statement of his defence within thirty days of the date of delivery of the summons.
- Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC provides the time schedule for filing the written statement to accelerate rather than hinder the hearing. The clause imposes a limitation on the defendant. It doesn't stop the Court's ability to extend the deadline.
- In UnilinBeheer BV vs. Balaji Action Buildwell (2019 SCC Online Del 8498), it was held that a written statement will not be taken on record, and the plaintiff's documents will also be deemed to be admitted if it is filed without an affidavit of admission/denial of documents. Additionally, the Court will be entitled to proceed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC based on that admission.
- After hearing both parties' arguments and referring to the aforementioned statutes, the Hon'ble Court held that Order V Rule 1(1) and Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC caters to the outer time limit for filing the written statement of defence and that filling out an affidavit of admission/denial of the plaintiff's documents by the defendant is a distinct stipulation. Furthermore, it was determined that both the written statement and the affidavit of admission/denial of documents were completed within the necessary, extended time frames, even though they were not filed simultaneously. Without delving into additional hypothetical issues that do not arise in this instance, the plaintiff's position does not merit acceptance.
- Therefore, the challenged order was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court.
"Loved reading this piece by Sharmishta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
