The case of Dr. Narender Kumar Sharma & Ors vs. Maharana Pratap Educational Center revolved around the procedural aspect of filing and re-filing a written statement. The dispute arose when the defendants were denied the right to file their written statement due to procedural delays. The case highlights the legal interpretations concerning the delay in re-filing and its implications on the rights of the parties involved.

• Factual Background:
  • The plaintiffs, Dr. Narender Kumar Sharma and others, filed a suit against Maharana Pratap Educational Center.
  • The defendants were served with summons on January 8, 2018, requiring them to submit their written statement within 120 days as per the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
  • The defendants initially filed their written statement on May 7, 2018, within the prescribed period.
  • However, due to certain office objections, the document was returned for rectification.
  • The defendants failed to re-file the corrected statement within the required timeframe.
  • The trial court, upon noticing this delay, passed an order on October 1, 2018, closing the defendants' right to file their written statement.
  • This led to an appeal before the High Court of Delhi.
• Procedural Background:
  • The appellants challenged the trial court’s order and sought condonation of the delay in re-filing the written statement.
  • The application for condonation of delay was based on the argument that the delay was not in the initial filing but in re-filing due to rectification of objections.
  • The High Court had to determine whether the delay in re-filing could be condoned and if it should be treated differently from the delay in the initial filing.
• Issues Involved in the Case:
  • Whether the delay in re-filing the written statement should be treated the same as the delay in initial filing?
  • Whether the defendants should be permitted to re-file their written statement despite the lapse of the prescribed 120-day period?
  • Whether the decision of the trial court in closing the right to file the written statement was legally justified?
• Submission of Parties:
  • Appellants:
    • Argued that the written statement was initially filed within time and was only delayed in re-filing due to office objections.
    • Contended that delay in re-filing should not be subjected to the same stringent standards as delay in initial filing.
    • Relied on precedents including S.R. Kulkarni vs. Birla VXL Ltd., 1998 (3) RCR (Civil) 436 and Indian Statistical Institute vs. Associated Builders & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 335.
  • Respondents:
    • Argued that re-filing amounts to fresh filing, and any delay should be viewed strictly.
    • Relied on the Division Bench judgment in Northern Railway vs. Pioneer Publicity Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (X) AD Delhi 378.
• Discussion on Judgments Cited:
  • In S.R. Kulkarni vs. Birla VXL Ltd. (1998), the court held that delay in re-filing should be treated differently from delay in initial filing.
  • In Indian Statistical Institute vs. Associated Builders & Ors. (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that delay in re-filing is not governed by the same limitations as initial filing under the Limitation Act.
  • In Northern Railway vs. Pioneer Publicity Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (2015), the Division Bench ruled that re-filing amounts to fresh filing and delay cannot be condoned.
  • In Northern Railway v. Pioneer Publicity Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 11 SCC 234, the Supreme Court overturned the Division Bench ruling, affirming that Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act applies only to initial filing.
• Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:
  • Justice Jayant Nath analyzed the precedents and concluded that the trial court erroneously treated the delay in re-filing as equivalent to a delay in initial filing.
  • The Supreme Court in Northern Railway v. Pioneer Publicity Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (2017) had clarified that re-filing should not be treated as fresh filing.
  • Given the absence of mala fide intent and the procedural nature of the delay, it would be unjust to deny the defendants the right to submit their written statement.
• Final Decision:
  • The High Court allowed the appeal.
  • Condoned the delay in re-filing.
  • Permitted the defendants to place their written statement on record, subject to a cost of ₹15,000.
• Law Settled in This Case:
  • This case reaffirmed that delays in re-filing should be assessed on different considerations than delays in initial filing.
  • Courts should not adopt a rigid approach in such matters, especially when procedural delays occur due to rectification of objections.
  • The ruling aligns with the Supreme Court’s stance that re-filing should not be equated with fresh filing.

Case Title: Dr. Narender Kumar Sharma & Ors Vs. Maharana Pratap Educational Center & Anr.
Date of Order: December 13, 2018
Case No.: CS(COMM) 22/2018
Neutral Citation: AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 2947
Court: High Court of Delhi
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Nath

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539