ANIL SHARMA Vs. AJAY JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/defendant has assailed orders dtd. 23/8/2023 and 15/3/2024 of the learned Commercial Court. By way of order dtd. 23/8/2023, the Written Statement filed beyond the prescribed period was taken off the record as the same was not accompanied with any application explaining the delay in filing the Written Statement and seeking condonation thereof. By way of order dtd. 15/3/2024, the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act filed on behalf of petitioner/defendant was dismissed.

(2.) Broadly speaking, the relevant circumstances are as follows. Summons of the commercial suit were served on the petitioner/defendant on 28/4/2023 but he filed the Written Statement on 18/7/2023, that too without any application explaining the circumstances, which led to delay in filing the Written Statement, and seeking condonation of that delay. Therefore, the learned trial court directed the Written Statement to be taken off the record and adjourned the matter to 9/10/2023. Thereafter, it is only on 27/1/2024 that petitioner/defendant filed an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement. That application also was dismissed vide order dtd. 15/3/2024.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant contends that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law because the petitioner/defendant had a fit case for condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement as the summons were served on the petitioner/defendant through his brother. It is further submitted that since courts were on summer vacation and learned counsel himself fell ill, he could not file the application for condonation of delay in time. It is contended that since the Written Statement was filed within the outer limit of 120 days after service of summons, the application for condonation of delay ought to have been allowed.