M/S KRISHAN KUMAR SOLE PROPRIETOR M/S BALAJI GLOWTICS vs M/S JAILAXMI ENTERPRISES PVT LTD

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 28th March, 2026 Date of Decision: 01st April, 2026 + CM(M) 2569/2024 & CM APPL. 28662/2024 M/S KRISHAN KUMAR SOLE PROPRIETOR M/S BALAJI GLOWTICS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Virendra Rawat, Mr. Rishabh Sharma and Mr. Siddharth N., Advs. versus M/S JAILAXMI ENTERPRISES PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shubham Jai and Mr. Ashish Kumar Arya, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA ORDER 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 12th January 2024 passed by the learned Trial Court in C.S. (COMM.) No. 37/2023, whereby the applications filed by the petitioner - one under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking restoration of the right to file the written statement, and another application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement have been dismissed. 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the written statement could not be filed within the stipulated time granted by the learned Trial Court, as the petitioner was unable to communicate with his previous counsel, Signature Not Verified Signed By:MANISHA CM(M) 2569/2024 Page 1 of 5 RAJPUT Signing Date:01.04.2026 16:50:09 who had traveled outside India and the entire record was with him. It is contended that the petitioner should not suffer, as the non-filing of the written statement would seriously prejudice his right to defend a false and frivolous suit. It is further submitted that the petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss if an opportunity to file the written statement is not granted. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no infirmit