BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

IA No.8382 of 2024
in
CS(OS) 270/2023
In the Matter of :
MITHUN DAS .....Plaintiff
Versus
ARVIND PANI & ORS. .....Defendants

INDEX

SNO. PARTICULARS Page

No.
1. Reply to the Application of Plaintiff to strike off the Right of Defendants to File 1-9
Written statement with Affidavit

2. Annexure A-1
Copy of proof of service of Written Statement to the Counsel for 10
Plaintiff, dated 27.09.2023.
3. Annexure A-2
Copy of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court e-filing Management 11
System stating the date of filing of Written Statement.
4. Annexure A-3
Copy of the Scrutiny Report in 1808881/2023, pertaining to the 12
Written Statement of the Defendants.
5. Proof of Service 13

Filed By

ADEEL AHMED, SOUMI GUHA THAKURTA

& SANA PARVEEN
Counsel for Defendants 1 TO 5
Dated: 09.04.2024

NEW DELHI
Chamber No.14,
Old Lawyers Chambers, RK Garg Block Supreme Court of India, New Delhi-
110001
Mob : 8585908959
e-mail: adeelbox@gmail.com
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
IA No.8382 of 2024
in
CS(OS) 270/2023
In the Matter of :
MITHUN DAS .....Plaintiff
Versus
ARVIND PANI & ORS. .....Defendants

REPLY TO THE APPLICATION OF PLAINTIFF TO STRIKE OFF THE

RIGHT OF DEFENDANTS TO FILE WRITTEN STATEMENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present Suit has been filed for damages, defamation, malicious

prosecution and permanent injunction against Defendants. The

defendants were Caveators in the same. The contents of the Suit are

not repeated herein for the sake of brevity, and the Defendant craves

leave and permission of this. Hon’ble Court to refer and rely upon the

contents of the main Petition at the time of hearing of the present

Application.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION:

2. THAT the said Application is not maintainable for want of wrongly

quoting the provision of law. The said provision of law, does not provide

for striking of defence, and hence, the present Application maybe

dismissed on this ground alone. Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC provides that a

defendant shall file his written defence within 30 days from the receipt
 of summons, which in the humble submission of the Defendant has

been accordingly done.

3. It is submitted that the aforesaid matter when listed on 19.05.2023, the

Hon’ble Court was pleased to order the following:-

“Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff prayed for two weeks’ time

to file the closure report filed by the Investigating Agency in relation to

FIR No. 265/2022, Police Station Bellanduru, Bengaluru. Let the said

th
report be filed within a period of two weeks, as prayed. List on 25

September, 2023.”

4. That, while Notice was pending in the aforesaid matter, and whereof the

Court fee in the said Suit was not paid, the Counsel for the Plaintiff

preferred an application (copy of which was served on the Defendant on

29.07.2023) averring, and not praying, that this Hon’ble Court be

pleased to club the present suit alongwith Civil Suit (OS) 46/2023. It is

respectfully submitted that the issues involved are different in the said

suits and that the Parties concerned are also different. It is also

submitted that Chapter X, Rule 2(ii) of the DELHI HIGH COURT

(ORIGINAL SIDE) RULES, 2018 provides for the following:

“The applicant shall be bound to intimate the opposite parties by any or

all modes including SMS/ e-mail/ fax or any other recorded delivery of the

date on which the application is scheduled to be listed. The applicant shall

be bound to intimate the opposite parties by any or all modes including

 SMS/ e-mail/ fax or any other recorded delivery of the date on which the

application is scheduled to be listed.”

But the same was never intimated to the Counsel for defendants, who

were on caveat, and merely an e-mail was sent an Application for early

hearing stating the next date of hearing to be on 25.09.2023, was sent

on 29.07.2023

5. However, the same came to be allowed by this Hon’ble Court and the

suit was registered as a plaint on 01.08.2023. That this Hon’ble Court

vide Order dated 01.08.2023 was pleased to order the following:

“ Upon the Plaintiff taking steps within 10 days, let summons be issued

to the Defendants, through all permissible modes. Summons shall

indicate that the Defendants are required to file written statements to

the plaint within 30 days from the date of receipt of summons along

with affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the

Plaintiff. Plaintiff may file replication(s) to the written statements within

30 days from receipt of the written statements along with affidavit of

admission/denial of the documents filed by Defendants. List before the

learned Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings and

admission/denial of documents on 20.11.2023.

I.A. 8592/2023 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC), 8591/2023

(for additional documents) and 8590/2023 (extension of time from

filing court fees)

 On the Plaintiff taking steps within 10 days from today, let notice be

issued to the Defendants through all permissible modes, returnable on

13.10.2023 before Court when CS(OS) No. 46/2023 is listed.”

DEATILED SUBMISSIONS:

6. It is hereby submitted that, by their own admission in the present I.A.

Filed By SUGANDHA ANAND On Behalf of Petitioner MITHUN DAS

Vide Diary No : 990735/2024, it has been stated that the Defendants

herein received a copy of the Plaint along with documents to the

Defendants on 29.08.2023. Thereafter, the Defendants herein

proceeded to serve the copy of the Written Statement and Reply to O39

Rule 1 & 2 Application, on 27.09.2023, and after which it was filed on

the same day, i.e. 27.09.2023, and defects were notified on 06.10.2023.

Copy of proof of service of Written Statement to the Counsel for Plaintiff,

dated 27.09.2023 is annexed herewith as Annexure A-1. Copy of the

Hon’ble Delhi High Court e-filing Management System stating the date

of filing of Written Statement is annexed herewith as Annexure A-2

7. The defendants have thereafter constantly followed it up with the

Registry of this Hon’ble Court. However, when all defects were

apparently cured, the Registry notified defects on 14.02.2024, that

“case category be correctly mentioned, proof of service not filed , and

onetime process fee not filed”. The same was rectified, and the same

came to be listed on 28.02.2024, where the Hon’ble Court( Ld. Joint

Registrar(Judicial) ordered the following:-

“As per office note, written statement and affidavit of admission/denial

of documents filed on behalf of the defendant no.1 to 5 have been

 returned under objection. Learned counsel for defendant no.1 to 5 is

requested to check it up with the Registry and have the same placed on

record.”

Therefore, the Written Statement and affidavit of admission/denial were

on record. However, on 28.02.2024, when the matter was listed before

the Hon’ble DHJS, the counsel for the Defendants learnt that defects

were again notified a day before i.e. on 28.02.2024, for a fresh affidavit

of admission/denial is to be filed, and that owing to the same, it cannot

be processed further. Nonetheless, the same was also obtained and

refiled, and after scrutiny, certain more defects were notified by the

Registry on 01.03.2024, which has been again corrected and refiled.

Copy of the Scrutiny Report in 1808881/2023, pertaining to the Written

Statement of the Defendants, is annexed herewith as Annexure A-3

8. It is most respectfully submitted that the defendants have constantly

followed it up with the Registry of this Hon’ble Court. However, owing

to scrutiny and refiling, the same has taken considerable time. All the

more because the documents and corrections had to be approved by

the Defendants, whose office is in Bangalore. That there was never any

delay on part of the Defendants to do the needful, and the delay, if any,

has been on account of scrutiny and sincere efforts to rectify the same

has ensued a bit of time, and the delay is on no fault of the Defendants.

The Defendants herein have also preferred an Application for

condonation of Delay in refiling the Written Statement , which has been

numbered as IA No. 8798/2024, and is now listed for hearing on

14.05.2024.
9. Furthermore, it is submitted that the Counsel for defendants have been

appearing before this Hon’ble Court. However, the appearance for the

same has not been recorded. A perusal of Order dated 28.02.2024, as

stated hereinabove, also shows that the Counsel of the Defendants were

directed to check for defects and with the Registry. In fact, in the order

dated 18.03.2024, it has been clearly stated too, that at the “joint

request of the parties, the matter is being adjourned”.

10. That it is submitted that there has been no

delay, which is either willful or wanton but due to multiple unavoidable

reasons beyond the control of these Defendants, and for which the

Defendants have preferred a separate application seeking condonation

of delay .

11. It is also submitted that the Defendants herein

have preferred an Application under Order VII Rule 11, numbered as IA

No. 8683/2024, on account of non-deposit of ad valorem Court fee, and

that the Plaint does not give rise to a Suit, because there is a pending

criminal case against the Plaintiffs in Bangalore.

12. That no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff

if the present application is dismissed, and completion of pleadings will

only help in furtherance of the natural justice and to give a complete

understanding of the case at hand. It is also submitted that court fees

in the aforesaid suit has still not been paid and the suit is liable to be

dismissed, on this account alone. On the other hand great prejudice

would be caused to the Defendants if the prayer made herein below is

allowed by this Hon’ble Court, and irreparable loss and injury would be
 caused to the Defendants herein, depriving them from an opportunity

to just and proper adjudication of the present suit.

PRAYER
In these circumstances the Defendants herein pray that this Hon’ble
Court may graciously be pleased to:
1) Dismiss the above application filed by the plaintiff for striking off written
statement; and

2) Pass any other order which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the
petitioner.

AND FOR THS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE DEFENDANT AS IN DUTY,

BOUND SHALL EVERY PRAY.

FILED BY

ADEEL AHMED, SOUMI GUHA THAKURTA

& SANA PARVEEN
Counsel for Defendants 1 TO 5
NEW DELHI
DATE: 26/04/2024
NEW DELHI