In a recent ruling by the Delhi High Court, the case of Excel Pack Pvt. Ltd. vs IGB Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. highlighted the critical aspect of being diligent in seeking legal remedies. The Court’s decision sheds light on the responsibilities of parties involved in litigation. Discover more about this noteworthy case in the detailed summary below.
Facts
- The Trial Court closed the right of the respondent to file the written statement due to a delay of nearly 4 years from the date of service of the summons.
- None appeared on behalf of the respondent on multiple dates of hearings, indicating a lack of response from their end.
- The reasons presented by the respondent for justifying the condonation of the delay in filing the written statement were dismissed by the Court.
- The applications for condonation of delay were allowed by the Trial Court on 12.01.2022 in the case titled ‘M/s Excel Pack Pvt. Ltd. vs IGB Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.’.
- The respondent failed to file its written statement despite nearly one year having passed since the service of the summons.
Arguments
- The petitioner argues that the proceedings lack jurisdiction, suffer from a mistake of the Court prejudicing a party, and that a necessary party has not been served or has died.
- The petitioner asserts that allowing the respondent to participate in the trial and contest the case would not cause prejudice since ex-parte evidence has not been completed yet.
- The petitioner blames the delay in trial on the respondent’s earlier legal advice and the petitioner’s own failure to file the amended memo of parties.
- The petitioner disputes that any intentional delay was caused by the respondent and argues that multiple adjournments were taken to correct the memo of parties.
- The petitioner claims that there are no pleadings or findings by the Trial Court to support the delay attributed to the respondent.
- The petitioner references a judgment to support their contention that the respondent had genuine reasons for not appearing and filing a written statement.
- The respondent had never been diligent in pursuing his defence
- The respondent deliberately derailed the case of the petitioner
Analysis
- The respondent’s right to file a written statement was closed on 05.03.2019.
- The respondent claimed to have handed over the written statement to his previous counsel for filing, assuming it was done.
- The respondent appeared before the Court on 09.04.2018 and was directed to file the written statement within the statutory period.
- The written statement was not filed leading to further delays in the case.
- Despite multiple hearing dates, the respondent failed to appear, leading to a proceeding ex-parte on 23.11.2019.
- The written statement was eventually filed on 29.09.2021.
- The fault for the delay in filing the written statement does not solely lie with the respondent.
- The Trial Court allowed the filing of the written statement and imposed costs as compensation for the delay.
- The petitioner was directed to implead the directors of the respondent company on 14.05.2018, which could only be done on 14.01.2019.
- Until the directors were impleaded and a fresh memo of parties was filed, the respondent could not have filed the written statement.
- Litigant should be diligent in pursuing reliefs before the Court of law.
- The Court does not find reason to interfere with the Trial Court’s decision.
- The respondent’s former counsel was not appearing before the Trial Court.
- An application under Section 151 was filed by the respondent.
- The applications were supported by an affidavit.
- The circumstances of the case were considered by the Trial Court.
- Default was partly due to the allegations against the counsel.
Decision
- The judgments cited by the parties were found to be based on unique facts that were distinguishable from the current case.
- Consequently, the petition was dismissed along with any pending applications.
Case Title: EXCEL PACK PVT LTD Vs. IGB POLYMERS PVT LTD (2024:DHC:3788)
Case Number: CM(M)-119/2022
