POOJA DIE MOULDS vs RAJDHANI METAL STORE

Judgment text excerpt

$~55 & 56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 17th March, 2025 + CM(M) 496/2025 & CM APPL. 15377/2025 POOJA DIE MOULDS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Chaudhry and Mr. Rishab, Advocates. versus RAJDHANI METAL STORE .....Respondent Through: None. 56 + CM(M) 497/2025 & CM APPL. 15384/2025 VIJAY ENGINEERING WORKS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Chaudhry and Mr. Rishab, Advocates. versus RAJDHANI METAL STORE .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The grievance raised in both the abovesaid petitions is very short and precise and since a common issue is involved, both the petitions have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners herein are defending two commercial suits filed by the same plaintiff i.e. M/s. Rajdhani Metal Store. 3. Admittedly, the defendants were served on 07.09.2024. They also filed their written statements on 21.09.2024. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 496/2025 & CM(M) 497/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:18.03.2025 18:40:11 4. The defendant had though filed the written statements, statements of truth and list of documents, the affidavit of admission/denial of documents were not filed and since more than 120 days had already elapsed, reckoned from the date of service, the learned Trial Court was compelled to observe that in such a situation, the documents filed by the plaintiff would be deemed to be admitted by the defendants. 5. Such orders dated 04.02.2025 are under challenge. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there was never any attempt or endeavour from the side of the defendants to delay the matter. On the contrary, the written statements were also filed within two weeks from the date