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: [email protected]
 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
 IN THE HIGII COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

CS (OS) NO. 270 OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

.. Plaintiff
Mithun Oas

Versus

Sh Arvind Pani & Ors. ... Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

I, Mohammed Rizwan, Son of Mohammed Khaleelullah, aged

about 42 Years, by faith- Islam, by occupation Service, working for

gain at Reverie Language Technologies Limited, Presently at New

Delhi do solemnly hereby declare and affirm as follows:

I.That I am the defendant No. 3 in this instant suit and also the

Authorized representative of Defendant No.5 in the above suit. I

am aware of the facts and circumstances of the present case and I

am authorized to swear and depose the contents of the present

affidavit.

2. I have read the contents of the accompanying Reply and I say

that the contents therein are true to my knowledge and also

based upon information / legal advice received by me and

believed to be true and nothing material nor relevant has been

concealed there from.

3. I say that I adopt the contents of the accompanying Reply as

part and parcel of my Affidavit. The same are not being

reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

,,.-
-· \ ;\ \I ,v \'

S1 No. Mi 'J
B.P V
pp. By D igh CJurt
Period: 1 .2023 to
14.0 .2025
rt of India
:__- -
VERIFICATION: 2 6 APR 2024

Verified at New Delhi 26TH Day, April 2024 that the contents
of my aforesaid Affidavit are true and correct to my
knowledge and belief and nothing material has been

concealed therefrom.
&:oJ~~\--

CERTIFI ED TH
Shri/Smt./Km.M_.q.

SI. 023 ~=-..,;- •

.~~·.·.....
lde~~d by Sh ..... LL,Jyr
B
Pe··
hCou
. 23 t ~~~51~ t'k~ SI.
1
No........ .......... r 1
- •

.2025 thaftl(l~~ \e~t~~f the affidavit which have

ourt of tndi been read & explaine ~t
to his/her Knowledge.

Oath
OfMII • c...-. of Wrineft Slat-" end Reply to OH IIIN 1 a 2 AHkatioll In CS(OSI 210 of 20U_lollltut On Ya. ArW1C1 Pani_
OIIIMl2•. r 85

M Gmail A rlee I A hmr(I ',ICll'Clbo -.; (I 9111a1I Oil •

Coples of Written Stateme nt and Reply to 039 Rule 1 & 2 Applica tion In CS(OS)
-
270 of 2023 Mlthun Dn Vs. Arvlnd Panl
-
AdNI Ahmed <[email protected]> Wed, Sep 27, 2023 et ◄ :38 PM
To: Sugandha Anand <suganct,a [email protected]>
Bee: SournHra 8al,agl <sournltrll11570gmall.com>

Kindly adalOWledge proof of service of Coples of Written Statement and Reply 10 039 Rule 1 & 2 Application In
CS(OS) 270 of 2023_Mlthln 0.. Vs. Arvlnd Pant_
~-
AdeelAhm ed
Advoca te-On-Rec ord
Sup«mc Court of India

Chambers :
14, Lawyers Chambers,
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi - 110001

Mob: +91 8585 90 8959

E-DISCLAJMER : This email communication, lnduding attachments ii IOlely Intended for the use of
the lndMdual ID whom it ia lddrelaed. It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
Information. If you are not the Intended recipient please notify the sender immediately and delete the
message forthwith from your malling system; any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action
based on the contents of this email Is strictly prohibited and oolawful. E-mall communications cannot
be guaran1aed to be timely, secure, error or viru•free. for which sender does not take any llabllty.

2 alladlmen la
~ Cl(OI) 270 of 202S_llthu n D• Ya. Arvlnd Panl_Raply to Appllcallon under OSI R 1 and 2.pclf
11370K
~ Cl(OI) 270 of 202S_lllhu n D• Va. Arvlnd Panl_w.llllm wbl1menl. pdf
11598K

httpS://fM/I........COffl/fMM/vlOl?.•lct1f'<:1dldlvl•-1>1&-dL ..ltveed•• :r7N4852NH l703144~•ms e-a:re<>0l11

1977544&17 M& ,... 1 of 1

85
4/26/24, 10:07 PM Gmail - Ref : CS(OS) 270/2023 IN MITHUN DAS Vs. ARVIND PANI & ORS.

Sana Parveen <[email protected]>

Ref : CS(OS) 270/2023 IN MITHUN DAS Vs. ARVIND PANI & ORS.
1 message

Sana Parveen <[email protected]> 26 April 2024 at 22:07

To: Sugandha Anand <[email protected]>, Adeel Ahmed <[email protected]>

Kind Attention

Please see the Reply to your application as well as Application for condonation of delay in Refilling the written statement.

Regards,

Adeel Ahmed
Advocate-On-Record
Supreme Court of India

Chambers :
14, Lawyers Chambers,
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi - 110001

MOB- 91 8585 90 8959

E-DISCLAIMER : This email communication, including attachments is solely intended for the use of the
individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are
not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately and delete the message forthwith from your
mailing system; any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action based on the contents of this email is
strictly prohibited and unlawful. E-mail communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely, secure, error or
virus-free, for which sender does not take any liability.

2 attachments
Soumi_reply_to_striking_of_ws.docx
31K
CONDONATION OF DELAY IN RE-FILLING REFILE. (2).pdf
348K

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f57a230780&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8408446699734138616&simpl=msg-a:r49450605204735… 1/1