SC Dismisses SLP Against Delhi HC Decision Holding 45-Day Period For Filing Replication As Mandatory In Even Non-Commercial Suits

By dismissing the SLP preferred against it, the Supreme Court on Monday affirmed a Delhi High Court decision holding that the maximum 45-day period for filing of replications is mandatory for even non-commercial, ordinary civil suits and the court cannot permit the replication to be taken on the record thereafter. The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud, R. Subhash Reddy and Ravindra Bhat was hearing the SLP against an October, 2020 decision of the division bench of the Delhi High Court whereby it affirmed the Single Judge's order holding that the Court of Joint Registrar and/or the Court did not have any power to condone the delay in filing the replication beyond 45 days, which is the time-period stipulated by the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.It may be noted that Rule 5 of Chapter 7 of the Rules, 2018 provides that the replication, if any, shall be filed within 30 days of receipt of the written statement. Further, if the Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff was prevented by sufficient cause for exceptional and unavoidable reasons in filing the replication within 30 days, it may extend the time for filing the same by a further period not exceeding 15 days "but not thereafter". In case no replication is filed within the extended time also, "the Registrar shall forthwith place the matter for appropriate orders before the Court"."If we say that the Rule is directory and not mandatory, then all the provisions for expeditious disposal of matters in the Commercial Courts Act and the C. P. C. will fall by the wayside", observed Justice Chandrachud."There is a reason why the Commercial Courts Act and C. P. C. amendments envisaging timelines have been brought in. Why must there be a delay at the instance of any of the parties?", asked Justice Bhat."The issue here is not even of a written statement but of the replication. Rule 5 does not say that the plaintiff 'shall' file a replication. What is the prejudice caused to you if there is no replication? It does not mean that you are admitting the averments in the written statement. This is a section 92 (of the C. P. C.) suit. The plaintiff does not have to controvert the written statement. These are writ principles. You can lead your evidence after the written statement", added Justice Chandrachud."The reply to the written statement can only be by the leave of the court as per the C. P. C. It is not an unmitigated right. It is just that this is a practice which has gone on for 35-40 years before the High Court and so it is allowed. But you cannot ask that while the whole country is going in one direction, the Delhi High Court should go in another. This way somebody will start insisting on a reply to the replication also", remarked Justice Bhat."The first adjudicatory forum was the Registrar (who declared that the right to file replication had been closed and no ground for extension was made out). Then there was the chamber appeal to the Singe Judge, followed by the second appeal to the Division Bench. Now you want the fourth court to dwell on this point?", commented the judge.It was the case of the SLP petitioner that in a non-commercial ordinary suit, the period of 45 days prescribed for filing a replication, is not mandatory and the same can be extended by the Court, that a co-ordinate bench of the High Court, while dealing with an ordinary, non-commercial, civil suit, permitted a written statement filed after 150 days of service of summons to be taken on record, and that, if a written statement can be taken on record beyond 120 days (as contemplated by Rule 4 of Chapter 7 of the 2018 Rules) in an ordinary suit, the same logic would apply to a replication to be filed at the instance of a Plaintiff in a suit.It was argued that the October 31, 2019 decision of the High Court in the case of Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. NBCC (India) Ltd., wherein it was held that in a commercial suit, the Joint Registrar/Court cannot extend the time beyond 45 days for filing the replication, was not applicable in the present case. Further, it was advanced that the High Court, in the said judgment, had erred in ruling that inherent powers cannot be used to override express provisions and hence, Rules 14 and 16 of Chapter 1 of the Rules, 2018 would not come to aid in condoning delay beyond 45 days."In the present case, if the provisions of Rule 5 are considered as mandatory and if the 45 days period is considered as not condonable by the Court, it would render the language of Rule 5 i.e. 'In case no replication is filed within the extended time also, the Registrar shall forthwith place the matter for appropriate orders before the Court' which follows the words 'but not thereafter' as otiose'...The High Court failed to appreciate and consider that if the intent was to close the right to file replication automatically after 45 days, the rule would have said so, and there was no question of placing the matter before the Court for 'appropriate orders' being passed", it was...

SC Dismisses SLP Against Delhi HC Decision Holding 45-Day Period For Filing Replication As Mandatory In Even Non-Commercial Suits

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

SC Dismisses SLP Against Delhi HC Decision Holding 45-Day Period For Filing Replication As Mandatory In Even Non-Commercial Suits

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers