Friday, December 24, 2021

THE BLANKET EXTENSION OF LIMITATION PERIOD DURING PANDEMIC: NOT PERMISSIBLE


 


The BLANKET EXTENSION OF LIMITATION PERIOD during pandemic: NOT PERMISSIBLE

The law relating to limitation is quite significant, as no claim can be pursued till perpetuity and finite period for raising claim is thus stipulated. The Limitation Act 1963 governs that. In the backdrop of Covid and owing to lockdown, people are genuinely prevented from raising their plea in courts of law and therefore the hon’ble Supreme Court under the extra-ordinary power as conferred on it under Article 141 of Constitution of India in Suo Motu case No. 3/2020 has extended period of limitation from time to time so as to prevent the claims of parties being stale in the backdrop of pandemic. The hon’ble Supreme Court has finally in the Suo Motu Case No.3/2021 was pleased to extend the period of limitation w.e.f 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021.However, the ensuing discussion is whether the extension is blanket or could it be circumscribed in facts and circumstances of the case.

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court have rendered a judgment on 17th  December, 2021 in CS (Comm) 119/2020 and in a matter captioned as  HT MEDIA LIMITED & ANR versus BRAINLINK INTERNATIONAL, INC. & ANR  (CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON)

It is to be noted that the suit related to infringement of Trade Mark. The order in the captioned matter was passed while disposing the application filed by the defendants under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The defendant had claimed that were not served with the summons of the suit and merely intimation was received to the effect that a suit is filed and that order dated 28th April, 2020 is passed by the court, through email, in compliance of requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.

The defendants had thus entered appearance and filed reply to the interim application filed by the plaintiffs. The defendants believed that they were not required to file a written statement of defence until and unless served with the summons of the suit. In any case, as the global pandemic had adversely affected the world, hence extension in limitation period was perceived as permissible. Moreover, the defendants had believed that Supreme Court of India was pleased to take cognizance of the situation and extended the limitation and therefore, the delay in filing written statement was liable to be condoned and the same could be taken on record.

The plea of defendants was that the 30 days’ time-line provided for filing of the written statement is  extendable for a period of 120 days and that is to be reckoned from the date when the summons were served. As no summons were never served on the defendants and further as defendants had appeared in response to the information furnished in compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, thus, in actual fact, there is no delay in filing of the written statement. The judgment rendered by Supreme Court in Cognizance For Extension of Limitation, In re. (2020) 9 SCC 468 [Misc. Appl. No.665/2021 in SMW(C) 3/2020] was relied upon to contend that the limitation period has been extended for all purposes. Further, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High court in Rohit Sharma v. A.M. Market Place Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3092.

The plaintiff had opposed the plea, as the delay was nearly 441 days, after the ad-interim order was passed and no cogent reasons were given to explain the delay. Pertinently, the defendants have appeared in the court, through their counsel, on several dates and still, the defendants opted not to file written statement. The Commercial suit in any case by virtue of its very nature mandates expedition. The application for seeking condonation was thus liable to be dismissed and right of the defendants to file the written statement should be closed. The plaintiff’s plea was that this was not a case in which the defendants had been prevented from participating in the proceedings. The suit, which itself had been filed while the pandemic was raging and the first order having been passed on 28th April, 2020, when the video conferencing hearings had commenced, and when the interim directions were issued, indicated that urgent matters were being heard by this court. The defendants had in fact appeared before the court on 29th May, 2020, through counsel, when it was informed to the court that two applications were being listed on 2nd June, 2020. One of these applications was filed by the defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC. Therefore, the defendants knew about the pendency of the suit and their claim that they expected to be served with the summons before filing their written statement, is untenable. Still further, a list of other applications filed by the defendants has also been given in the written submissions as also in the reply, to point out that the defendants were not prevented by the pandemic from taking various steps or participating in different proceedings before different fora. It was thus pleaded that the benefit of the Supreme Court decision in Cognizance For Extension of Limitation (supra), could not enure to the defendants.

It was also contended that the application for seeking condonation of delay in filing written statement was filed only after the plaintiffs had filed their application under Order XIII-A CPC, seeking summary judgment in their favour, which was listed before the court on 6th July, 2021.


                            CASE LAWS:

1.  Love Chauhan v. Ajay Kumar Kathuria, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4861,

2.  Shagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Polywood Products Private Limited and Others. (2021) 2 SCC 317

3.   Bharat Kalra v. Raj Kishan Chabra, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3976

The aforesaid dicta buttress the plea that the benefit of extension of time pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court on 23rd March, 2020, was not automatically available to all.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment in

1.  Flight Center Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. Flight Centre Limited, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 331,

2.  Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui v. Prem Nath Kapoor, (1993) 4 SCC 406,

3.  Nath Agrawal v. Nath, 1981 SCC OnLine All 445

4.   Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India, (2008) 2 SCC 326, The aforesaid judgments relates to the fact that once the defendants participated in the proceedings, the defendants waived the right to be served with the summons.

In the light of the above judgments, It is held in the matter by hon’ble Delhi High Court that defendants were not impacted due to the conditions that prevailed due to the pandemic and nothing precluded the defendants from interacting with their counsel and filing appropriate applications and replies before this court and therefore the judgment rendered by hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance For Extension of Limitation (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. It was also noted that that the parties were referred to mediation on 22nd  February, 2021 and the report that mediation efforts had failed, received on 30th June, 2021. Subsequently, when plaintiffs on 6th July, 2021, applied for summary judgment that the defendants had woken up from slumber and opted to file a written statement and application for condonation of delay was filed for placing written statement on record.

Another aspect that the hn’ble court had also weighed in the context was that whereas on 28th April, 2020, summons were directed to be issued and process fee was also directed to be filed, and as per record the one-time process fee was envisaged to be deposited by the plaintiffs, however, the Registry does not seem to have issued any summons, though intimation was sent to the defendants giving the particulars of the case and the interim directions of this Court. The question is whether this lapse, if it be one, would enure to the benefit of the defendants? The High Court has answered that no such benefit shall enure to the benefit of defendants. The high court having regard to Supreme Court judgment in Sunil Poddar (supra) has held accordingly. Though, the judgment rendered In Sunil Poddar (Supra) was in the context of an application under Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 read with Order IX Rule 13 CPC, still, the observations made therein would be significant here. In that case, it was held that the question is not whether the defendants were actually served with the summons in accordance with the procedure laid down and in the manner prescribed under Order V CPC, but whether the defendants had sufficient notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the claim of the plaintiffs. To reproduce paragraphs No. 23 and 24 of the said judgment shall be worthwhile:

 “23. It is, therefore, clear that the legal position under the amended Code is not whether the defendant was actually served with the summons in accordance with the procedure laid down and in the manner prescribed in Order 5 of the Code, but whether (i) he had notice of the date of hearing of the suit; and (ii) whether he had sufficient time to appear and answer the claim of the plaintiff. Once these two conditions are satisfied, an ex parte decree cannot be set aside even if it is established that there was irregularity in service of summons. If the court is convinced that the defendant had otherwise knowledge of the proceedings and he could have appeared and answered the plaintiff's claim, he cannot put forward a ground of non-service of summons for setting aside ex parte decree passed against him by invoking Rule 13 of Order 9 of the Code. Since the said provision applies to the Debts Recovery Tribunals and the Appellate Tribunals under the Act in view of Section 22(2)(g) of the Act, both the Tribunals were right in observing that the ground raised by the appellants could not be upheld. It is not even contended by the appellants that though they had knowledge of the proceedings before DRT, they had no sufficient time to appear and answer the claim of the plaintiff Bank and on that ground, ex parte order deserves to be set aside”.

24. “In our opinion, the Tribunals were also right in commenting on the conduct of the appellant-defendants that they were appearing before the civil court through an advocate, had filed written statement as also applications requesting the court to treat and try certain issues as preliminary issues. All those facts were material facts”.

14. A coordinate Bench of Delhi High Court in Flight Center (supra) has held that when the defendant had knowledge of the case and had entered appearance through counsel, a technical process of service of summons need not be insisted upon. It was observed as below: -

“It was, therefore, incumbent upon the appellants to disclose such facts in an application under Section 22(2)(g) of the Act when they requested DRT to set aside ex parte order passed against them. The appellants deliberately and intentionally concealed those facts. There was no whisper in the said application indicating that before the civil court they were present and were also represented by an Advocate. An impression was sought to be created by the appellant-defendants as if for the first time they came to know in December 2000 that an ex parte order had been passed against them and immediately thereafter they had approached DRT. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, therefore, in our opinion was right in dismissing the said application.”

The objective of the process of issuance of summons is to obtain the presence of the defendant for final opportunity to be given to him to rebut the claim against him. Thus, if he appears at the initial stage in a sense there is waiver of the right to have summons served on him. This position has been explained in the case of Sri Nath Agrawal case (supra) and to that extent the aforesaid has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui case (supra).”

The high court thus held that there is no reason to take a different view in the present case. The defendants in the present matter were fully aware of the present case and had participated on various dates from 29th May, 2020, including in mediation, and opted not to file their written statement. Had they been not represented by a counsel, a probable view could have been taken that the procedure was unknown to the defendants. However, they have been assisted by counsel throughout this being a commercial suit, entailing strict timelines. The plea of the defendants that since the summons had not been served to them, the time had not begun to run, cannot be accepted. Thus, on both grounds, there is no merit found in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing written statement. The delay was thus not condoned and filing of the written statement was declined.



REMARK

The pandemic, no doubt has caused colossal loss of time and resources and the Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020 passed hon’ble Supreme Court has been apt and with a view to securing ends of justice, so that litigants are not non- suited owing to the reasons beyond the control of litigants. However, the moot point is that when a litigant is aware about the development in a case and had not only the wherewithal, but, opted to appear in the said case and defended the case, through counsel with all the might in their command, whether, the leverage accorded to by the hon’ble Supreme Court could be claimed by such a litigant as a matter of right for seeking delay for inordinately longer period? The technicalities of formally receiving a summon should therefore be a sine qua non in such a situation or not? It is held not to be so, by the hon’ble high court. The legal process is to aid and not to avail technical brownie point. As it is, the delay is often caused and it is alleged that the judicial process has inherent impediment ingrained in it, thereby, causing delay. In the context, the expedition should be the norm and efforts to that effect deserved to be lauded, of course, while ensuring that the litigants does not suffer in bona fide case, for want of legal aid. In the present case, the parties were duly represented and had all the knowhow and wherewithal and opted selectively to invoke the nuances of law and procedure, therefore, taking advantage of a system by harping on the leverage available only to bona fide litigants and no inbuilt claim of extension of period of limitation could be claimed by a party. If a party, notwithstanding the above, seeks to avail of such condonation in delay, in placing written statement on record, the same could only be dealt with on its own merit as is held by Delhi High Court in the present matter. That said, though,  final words, probably, in the context is yet to come.

                                                   Anil K Khaware

                                                   Founder & Senior Associate

                                                   Societylawandjustice.com


 

 

 

SECTION 12 (1)(a) HMA –IMPOTENCY AND NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

  SECTION 12 (1)( a ) HMA –IMPOTENCY AND Nullity of marriage That the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) 1955 contains different grounds for seeking...