SHAMINDER SINGH BHATIA Vs. VISHNU BHAGWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff (Mr. Shaminder Singh Bhatia) ("Respondent' in the present application) seeking specific performance of an agreement entered into between parties. He seeks a decree against the Defendant (Mr. Vishnu Bhagwan) for payment an amount of INR 3 crores. Present appeal, stemming from the suit, has been filed by the Defendant ("Appellant') against the order dtd. 24/1/2023 ("Impugned Order') passed by the Joint Registrar ("JR'). This Impugned Order has been passed rejecting I.A. 14154/2022, filed by Defendant-Appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing of the written statement.

(2.) The JR in their decision noted that the written statement was submitted 148 days after the summons were served through publication. This duration exceeds the statutory condonable limit of 120 days for filing a written statement. Consequently, the JR held that such a delay could not be condoned, as it exceeded the prescribed timeline. In response, the Appellant has filed the present appeal, contesting the JR's interpretation of the commencement of the limitation period. The Appellant argues that the limitation period should start from the date on which they were actually served with the plaint, rather than the date of service through publication. They contend that the circumstances justifying substituted service, in this case, are insufficient or not adequately established. Therefore, according to the Appellant, the calculation of the limitation period as determined by the JR is incorrect, and as such, the delay in filing the written statement should be reassessed based on the date of receipt of the paper-book.

(3.) The process of serving summons in this suit encountered obstacles, as attempts through postal mode were unsuccessful. The summons were returned with the report that the Defendant (Appellant) was 'not residing at the given address'. Additionally, the summons sent via courier were pending delivery, as noted in order dtd. 24/9/2021. In light of these challenges, counsel for Respondent argued that the address provided in the memo of parties was the Appellant's last known address. He requested for Court's permission to file an application for substituted service, suggesting that the Appellant is deliberately avoiding the service of summons.