Delhi High Court: Pandemic-Related Limitation Suspension Protects Defendant – No Delay in Entering Appearance Under Order XXXVII CPC

---

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the trial court’s ruling, holding that the defendant entered appearance without delay. The court applied the Supreme Court‘s directions on suspension of limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic and found the trial court’s decision to be justified, free of any perversity or error.

---

Facts:

1. Filing of the Suit: The petitioner filed a summary recovery suit under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) on December 20, 2021.
2. Summons Issued: Summons for appearance were issued to the defendant, returnable on February 2, 2022.
3. Service Issue: Despite an affidavit of service submitted by the plaintiff, the summons were returned unserved with the remark “left without instructions.”
4. Appearance by the Defendant: On February 2, 2022, the defendant appeared through counsel in the trial court, stating that he had not received the plaint or related documents. The court directed the plaintiff to supply these via WhatsApp and email on the same day.
5. Filing of Leave to Defend: On February 12, 2022, the defendant submitted a leave to defend along with an affidavit via email to the trial court and the plaintiff.
6. Application for Delay Condonation: The defendant filed an application seeking condonation of delay, citing disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
7. Plaintiff’s Objection: The plaintiff opposed the application, arguing that the defendant was served prior to February 2, 2022, and failed to enter appearance within the stipulated 10 days.

---

Issues:

1. Was there a delay in entering appearance by the defendant as required under Order XXXVII Rule 3 CPC?
2. Did the trial court err in holding that the delay was justified under the circumstances?

---

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Service and Delay: The petitioner argued that the defendant had been served well before February 2, 2022, and had failed to appear within the mandatory 10-day period.
2. Erroneous Findings: The petitioner claimed that the trial court erred in holding that there was no delay, as the defendant did not specify the date of actual service.

---

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Timely Appearance: The defendant argued that he appeared on February 2, 2022, as directed by the trial court, and subsequently filed a leave to defend on February 12, 2022.
2. COVID-19 Disruption: The delay, if any, was due to unprecedented circumstances caused by the pandemic, which justified the extension of limitation under the Supreme Court’s directions.

---

Analysis of the Law:

1. Order XXXVII CPC: Under Rule 3, a defendant in a summary suit is required to enter appearance within 10 days of service of summons.
2. Supreme Court Directions: In In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [(2022) 3 SCC 117], the Supreme Court suspended all limitation periods from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, due to the pandemic. The directions provided:
   • Limitation periods were paused during the suspension period.
   • A minimum extended period of 90 days was granted, starting March 1, 2022, even if the original limitation was shorter.
3. Application to the Case:
   • The defendant received the plaint on February 2, 2022, and the limitation period commenced thereafter.
   • The premature filing of leave to defend on February 12, 2022, was considered equivalent to entering an appearance.

---

Precedent Analysis:

1. Puri Investments v. Young Friends and Co. & Others [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 283]: Supervisory courts under Article 227 intervene only when findings are perverse, based on irrelevant evidence, or erroneous in law.
2. In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation: This precedent established that the pandemic constituted sufficient cause to extend limitation periods, which applied directly to the present case.

---

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Limitation and Appearance:
   • The High Court clarified that the limitation period began on February 2, 2022, when the defendant received the plaint electronically.
   • By filing the leave to defend on February 12, 2022, the defendant effectively complied with the requirement to enter appearance.
2. Premature Filing:
   • The defendant’s premature filing of the leave to defend was deemed equivalent to entering appearance, as the plaintiff had not yet issued summons for judgment.
3. Pandemic-Related Suspension:
   • The High Court noted that the Supreme Court’s directions on limitation suspension applied. The limitation period was paused between February 2, 2022, and February 28, 2022, and a minimum 90-day extension was available starting March 1, 2022.
   • This meant that even if the 10-day period applied, the extended limitation made the defendant’s actions timely.

---

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s findings, holding that:

1. There was no delay in entering appearance.
2. The trial court’s ruling was neither perverse nor erroneous.
3. The petition lacked merit and was dismissed.

---

Implications:

1. Broad Application of Supreme Court’s Directions: The judgment affirms the expansive application of the Supreme Court’s limitation suspension directions, emphasizing judicial leniency in procedural matters during unprecedented disruptions like the pandemic.
2. Article 227 Jurisdiction: The decision reinforces that supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting perverse or erroneous findings and does not extend to re-appreciating evidence or substituting judicial discretion.

Also Read – Kerala High Court Directs Completion of Enquiry into Genuineness of Disputed Patta Within Four Months: “Administrative Inefficiency Cannot Indefinitely Delay Justice”