SAROJ NIJHAWAN Vs. SEEMA CHHABRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned interim order dtd. 6/3/2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. 4361/2024 in CS(OS) 738/2022,whereby the application filed by the Appellants-Plaintiffs seeking condonation of delay of One Hundred and Twenty Nine (129) days in filing the replication to the written statement filed by Respondent nos.1 and 2/Defendant nos.1 and 2 was dismissed as it was filed beyond the period of forty five (45) days as prescribed in Rule 5 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (the 'Original Side Rules').

(2.) Learned counsel for the Appellants states that vide order dtd. 18/8/2023 passed in the subject suit, the written statements filed by the Respondent nos.1 and 2/Defendant nos.1 and 2 were taken on record after condoning a delay of seventy two (72) and one hundred and thirty nine (139) days respectively, primarily on the ground that parties were negotiating a settlement in mediation. He thus contends that the delay in filing the replication on account of mediation ought to be condoned too.

(3.) Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that the written statements in the present case were taken on record after the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs had given their 'no objection' to the same being taken on record. This Court is also of the view that even if the matter was pending before mediation, the appellants/plaintiffs should have filed their replication without prejudice to their rights and contentions.