Judgment :- I.A. 24888/2014 (by the defendant No.2 u/S 151 CPC for condonation of delay in filing the written statement) 1. The present application has been filed by the defendant No.2 praying inter alia for condonation of delay of 111 days in filing the written statement. 2. Some of the dates considered essential for deciding the present application are as follows. 3. The defendant No.2 was served the summons in the suit on 12.03.2012. Under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, the prescribed period of 30 days for filing the written statement when reckoned from the aforesaid date, would have expired on 12.04.2012. The extended period of 60 days reckoned from 12.04.2012, would have expired on 12.06.2012. Instead of filing the written statement, the defendant No.2 elected to file an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, on 29.05.2012. Notice was issued on this application on 01.06.2012, returnable before the Joint Registrar on 30.07.2012, for completion of pleadings. The said application remained pending till 14.08.2014, when arguments were heard and orders were reserved thereon. 4. A perusal of the order sheets reveals that the aforesaid application filed by the defendant No.2 was rejected vide judgment dated 26.09.2014. Thereafter, the defendant No.2 filed the written statement on 02.12.2014. Accompanying the said written statement is the present application for seeking condonation of delay of 111 days. 5. Mr. Nayar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant No.2 submitted that the defendant No.2 was diligently prosecuting its application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and only after the same came to be dismissed on 26.09.2014, that the defendant No.2 started taking steps to examine its records including the correspondence exchanged between the parties. He submitted that considerable time was spent in identifying the documents relevant to the case, more so since the said documents were archived at the Mumbai office of the defendant No.2. Learned counsel went on to state that when an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was pending adjudication, the defendant No.2 was well entitled to withhold its written statement till a decision was taken on the said application. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Saleem Bhai and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported as (2003) 1 SCC 557 . 6. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Saleem Bhai and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported as (2003) 1 SCC 557 . 6. Ms.Diya Kapoor, learned counsel for the plaintiff opposed the present application and submitted that the defendant No.2 has failed to offer any plausible explanation or make out exceptional circumstances for explaining the failure on its part to file the written statement within the stipulated period of 30 days or within the extended period of 90 days, as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. She contended that the defendant No.2 had decided to take its chances by pursuing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without seeking leave of the Court to file the written statement and without the Court granting any leave. She further stated that in the given circumstances, where the defendant No.2 had failed to file the written statement on or before 12.06.2012, the stipulated date, passing of the order in I.A.10987/2012, on 26.9.2014 would not have automatically extended the timeline for it to file the written statement anytime thereafter. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff went on to state that even if it is assumed that the defendant No.2 would have been entitled to file the written statement after the disposal of the aforecited application, then the period of 30 days if reckoned from 26.09.2014, the date when the said application was dismissed, would have expired on 26.10.2014, whereas the written statement has been filed by the defendant No.2 as late as on 02.12.2014. She argued that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Saleem Bhai (supra) relied upon by the other side, would not be of any assistance to the defendant No.2 as the said decision was prior to the landmark judgment delivered in the case of Kailash Vs. Nanku & Ors. reported as (2005) 4 SCC 480 , wherein the post amendment situation was taken note of and it was specifically observed that the timeline prescribed in the CPC for filing the written statement would not be automatically extended on the asking of the defendant unless some exceptional circumstances were made out in that regard. Nanku & Ors. reported as (2005) 4 SCC 480 , wherein the post amendment situation was taken note of and it was specifically observed that the timeline prescribed in the CPC for filing the written statement would not be automatically extended on the asking of the defendant unless some exceptional circumstances were made out in that regard. To buttress her submission that when it comes to extending the timeline to file the written statement, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 148 CPC, the approach of the Court ought to be cautious, reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.N. Jadi and Brothers and Ors. vs. Subhaschandra reported as (2007) 6 SCC 420 . 8. In rebuttal, Mr. Nayar drew the attention of the Court to the averments made by the defendant No.2 in the rejoinder to the reply filed in I.A. 10987/2012, particularly para 7 thereof to highlight that the defendant No.2 had reserved its right to file a detailed written statement on merits after adjudication of the said application. To substantiate the defendant No.2’s stand that the said defendant need not have filed the written statement during the pendency of the application filed by it under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, he relied on the observations made in the order dated 07.01.2013, passed in FAO(OS) 11/2013 entitled Aditya Kumar Sen vs. Anindya Sen and Ors. and asserted that the Division Bench had sought to distinguish the judgment in the case of Saleem Bhai (supra) from the case of R.N. Jadi (Supra), by clarifying that both the decisions operate in different fields. 9. The Court has heard the counsels for the parties and carefully considered their submissions in the light of the judicial pronouncements relied upon by both sides. 10. The law on the scope of the Court exercising its discretion in condoning the delay on the part of the defendant in filing the written statement is no longer res integra. 9. The Court has heard the counsels for the parties and carefully considered their submissions in the light of the judicial pronouncements relied upon by both sides. 10. The law on the scope of the Court exercising its discretion in condoning the delay on the part of the defendant in filing the written statement is no longer res integra. As was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Kailash vs. Nanku (supra), ordinarily, the time schedule prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC ought to be adhered to and a prayer for extension of time made by a defendant for filing of a written statement should not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for the asking, more so when the period of 90 days has expired and that extension of time may be allowed by way of an exception, for reasons to be assigned by the defendant and placed on record in writing. To sum up, extension of time for filing the written statement can be allowed under exceptional circumstances, caused by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and where grave injustice would be occasioned if time was not extended. 11. In the case of R.N. Jadi (supra), the Supreme Court had observed that post amendment of the CPC, Order VIII, Rule 1 casts an obligation on the defendant to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him and within the extended time falling within 90 days. However, it was emphasized that the provision does not deal with the power of the court and also does not specifically take away the court’s power to take the written statement on record, though filed beyond the time as provided for. It was observed that Order VIII, Rule 1 CPC is not a part of the substantive law, but is procedural in nature. 12. Substituted Order VIII, Rule 1 CPC is directed towards curbing the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of cases and causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs who approach the court for quick relief. It was aimed at overcoming the serious inconvenience faced by the courts on account of frequent prayers made for adjournments. The object of the amendments to the relevant provisions of the CPC being to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. It was aimed at overcoming the serious inconvenience faced by the courts on account of frequent prayers made for adjournments. The object of the amendments to the relevant provisions of the CPC being to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. It has been reiterated time and again that justice delayed may amount to justice denied, but justice hurried may in some cases, may end up in justice being buried and the principles of natural justice ought not to be sacrificed at the alter of processual law, that has always to be treated as a handmaid of justice. 13. Moreover, if the court is inclined to grant extension of time, given some exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, it may impose costs as a deterrent to ensure that the defendants do not seek extension of time just as a matter of routine and at the same time, to compensate the plaintiff for the delay in the suit proceedings and the inconvenience caused. There cannot be any quarrel with the legal proposition enunciated in the case of Saleem Bhai (supra), but the said case deals with the pre-amendment position in respect of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and does not have any application to the facts of this case. Instead, the judgment in the case of R.N. Jadi (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 14. At the same time, learned counsel for the defendant No.2 is justified in saying that a defendant can file an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for seeking rejection of the plaint. However, filing of such an application would not automatically extend the period of limitation for filing the written statement as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, until and unless, on filing of such an application, the court elects to decide the same in the first instance, without calling for the written statement from the defendant. It has ordinarily been noted that the provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is very often abused and misused by defendants with the sole intention of delaying the suit proceedings. As a result, an endeavour is made by the courts to decide such an application before calling upon the defendant to file the written statement. 15. It has ordinarily been noted that the provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is very often abused and misused by defendants with the sole intention of delaying the suit proceedings. As a result, an endeavour is made by the courts to decide such an application before calling upon the defendant to file the written statement. 15. In the present case, well before the date fixed by the court for the appearance of the parties, the defendant No.2 had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (I.A.10987/2012) praying inter alia that the suit as filed by the plaintiff was liable to be rejected for various reasons, including lack of territorial jurisdiction and suppression/non-disclosure of material facts. Indisputably, while filing the said application, the defendant No.2 did not seek leave of the Court to file the written statement, in the event the said application would be turned down. However, a perusal of the pleadings in I.A.10987/2012 would reveal that at the time of filing its rejoinder to the reply filed by the plaintiff, defendant No.2 had stated in para 7 of the reply to the preliminary objection taken by the other side that it reserved its right to file its detailed substantive written statement by responding to the merits of the suit only after adjudication of the application. In fact, the defendant No.2 went on to elaborate in its rejoinder that as per the settled law, the right of the defendant No.2 to file the written statement cannot be closed during the pendency of an application filed by the said defendant seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 CPC. 16. The sequence of events in the case reveal that the defendant No.2 was served with the summons in the suit on 12.03.2012. The prescribed period of 30 days available under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for filing the written statement would have expired on 12.04.2012. The extended period of 60 days for filing the written statement for reasons to be explained if reckoned from 12.04.2012, would have expired on 12.06.2012. In the meantime, the defendant No.2 had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (I.A.10987/2012), on 29.05.2012. The extended period of 60 days for filing the written statement for reasons to be explained if reckoned from 12.04.2012, would have expired on 12.06.2012. In the meantime, the defendant No.2 had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (I.A.10987/2012), on 29.05.2012. The said application was taken up for hearing and judgment was reserved on 14.08.2014 and by an order pronounced on 26.09.2014, the said application was rejected while reserving the right of the defendant No.2 to raise an objection with regard to lack of territorial jurisdiction for being decided along with other issues at the time of final disposal of the suit. Thereafter, the defendant No.2 had filed the written statement on 02.12.2014. 17. Counsel for the plaintiff had contended that the delay in filing the written statement should be reckoned from 12.03.2012, the date when the defendant No.2 was served with the summons in the suit and if calculated from the said date, the delay would be of about 964 days. However, if the defendant No.2 is granted the benefit of filing the written statement within 90 days from the date of being served with the summons in the suit, the clock would start ticking from 02.07.2012 for the reason that the period of 90 days would have expired on 12.06.2012, i.e., during the summer vacations. If the period of 30 days for filing the written statement is calculated from the date of disposal of the defendant No.2’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, i.e., from 26.09.2014, the cut-off date would have been 26.10.2014. If the extended period of 60 days is reckoned from 26.10.2014, then the cut-off date would have been 26.12.2014. However, the defendant No.2 had filed its written statement on 02.12.2014, i.e., prior to the second cut-off date. 18. Even as per the averments made in the present application, the defendant No.2 has sought condonation of delay of 111 days in filing the written statement and the 30 days period prescribed for filing the written statement has been calculated by it by excluding the period between 29.05.2012 to 26.09.2014, when I.A. 10987/2012 was pending adjudication. 18. Even as per the averments made in the present application, the defendant No.2 has sought condonation of delay of 111 days in filing the written statement and the 30 days period prescribed for filing the written statement has been calculated by it by excluding the period between 29.05.2012 to 26.09.2014, when I.A. 10987/2012 was pending adjudication. The explanation offered for the delay in filing the written statement is that the defendant No.2 was conducting a detailed examination of the documents filed by the plaintiff alongwith the plaint and also examining its own records including the correspondence exchanged with the plaintiff and the process of identifying the documents which were relevant to the suit, took a lot of time especially since all the relevant documents pertaining to the transaction were archived in the Mumbai office of the defendant No.2. 19. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and keeping in mind the pendency of an application filed by the defendant No.2 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for seeking rejection of the plaint, that remained on the board from 29.05.2012 till 26.09.2014 and further, taking into consideration the fact that while filing the rejoinder in response to the reply filed by the plaintiff to the said application, the defendant No.2 had specifically reserved its right to file a detailed written statement after adjudication of the said application, this Court is of the opinion that the said defendant has been able to offer sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The aforesaid view is further reinforced by the explanation offered by the defendant No.2 that most of the documents in respect of the transactions challenged by the plaintiff were housed in their Mumbai office and it would have taken some time for the defendant No.2 to collate the said documents to prepare a substantive written statement. 20. At the same time, the delay on the part of the defendant No.2 in filing the written statement is found to be too pronounced. Knowing very well that it could very well have faced adverse orders in its application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the defendant No.2 should have been diligent enough to have taken adequate steps to prepare its defence on merits in advance and keep it handy for drafting the written statement at the earliest, in case of dismissal of its application. As noted above, I.A.10987/2012 was dismissed on 26.09.2014, and the defendant No.2 had ended up filing its written statement after a lapse of 66 days reckoned from the said date, i.e., on 02.12.2014, thus giving sufficient handle to the plaintiff to oppose the present application. Therefore, the scales would have to tilt in favour of the plaintiff insofar as compensating it for the unreasonable delay on the part of the defendant No.2 in filing the written statement is concerned, more so when the suit proceedings have got stalled for a period of one year and seven months, if reckoned from the date when the defendant No.2 was served with the summons in the suit wherein a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,94,50,000/- is sought against it. 21. It is therefore deemed appropriate to allow the present application for condonation of delay, subject to compensatory costs of Rs. 75,000/- imposed on the defendant No.2. The aforesaid costs shall be paid to the plaintiff through counsel within two weeks from the date of passing of this order. It is made clear that in case of any delay in paying the costs to the plaintiff within the prescribed timeline, the written statement filed by the defendant No.2 would be taken off the record. 22. The application is disposed of.