In a recent judgment, the High Court of Delhi observed and held that Order VIII Rule 10 has been inserted by the legislature to expedite the process of justice. The courts can invoke its provisions to curb dilatory tactic, often resorted to by defendants, by not filing the written statement by pronouncing judgment against it.
The said ratio was delivered by the High Court of Delhi the matter of ITC Limited Vs. Vikas Rastogi, CS(Comm) 846/2017 decided on 20.07.2018.
In the present case, the only challenge before the court was whether the decree should be passed against the defendant when there is a failure of his part to file the written statement within prescribed period of time.
The present application has been filed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order XIII-A of the Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act 2015.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi after relying upon a commercial suit Nirog Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Umesh Gupta and Ors., 235 (2016) DLT 354 and CS(OS) 873/2015 Samsung Electronics Company Limited &Anr. Vs. Mohammed Zaheeer Trading As M/s. Gujarat Mobiles & Ors. observed that in case of a commercial suit within the definition of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, it was the clear intention of the legislature that such cases should be decided expeditiously and should not be allowed to linger on. Accordingly, if the defendant fails to pursue his case or does so in a lackadaisical manner by not filing his written statement, the courts should invoke the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 to decree such case.
It was further observed that applicability of Order VIII Rule 10 is only when the court for recorded reasons is fully satisfied that there is no fact which needs to be proved at the instance of the plaintiff in view of the deemed admission by the defendant. In such a case, the court can conveniently pass a judgment and decree against the defendant who has not filed the written statement