M/S BENETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED vs SACHIN KUMAR & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 16.07.2025 + C.R.P. 198/2025 & CM Appl.41614/2025 M/S BENETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Himanshu Sethi and Ms. Aishwarya Chhabra, Advs. versus SACHIN KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) CM Appl.41620/2025[Seeking condonation of delay] 1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the present Petition. 2. For the reasons as stated in the Application, the delay is condoned. 3. The Application stands disposed of. C.R.P. 198/2025 & CM Appl.41614/2025[Stay] 4. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] impugning the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned District Judge-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC filed by the Petitioner [Defendant No. 3 before the learned Trial Court] has been Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:30.08.2025 C.R.P. 198/2025 Page 1 of 5 14:52:22 dismissed and a finding has been given by the learned Trial Court that for the purposes of computing limitation, the suit would be covered under Article 75 or under Article 101 or under Article 113 of the Schedule appended with the Limitation Act, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as “Limitation Act”] holding that since this is a mixed question of fact and law and can only be decided at an appropriate stage after evidence is led by both the parties. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent No.1/Plaintiff had filed a suit for dam