45-Day Limitation To File Replication Runs From Date When Belated Written Statement Is Recorded, Not From Advance Service: Delhi High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
29 Sept 2025 7:00 PM IST
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that merely because a written statement (WS), filed belatedly, is served by the Defendant on the Plaintiff, the same would not obligate the latter to file his rejoinder/ replication within 45 days thereafter.
Justice Tejas Karia observed that the replication would be futile if the Court refuses to condone the delay in filing of WS. Hence, the statutory 45-days period for filing replication commences after the WS is taken on record by the Court.
“A replication is a responsive pleading filed by the plaintiff. If the court were to refuse condonation of delay in filing a belated written statement, the written statement would not become a part of the record and the necessity of filing replication would not arise at all. It would therefore be illogical to expect the Plaintiffs to compute time from the date of advance service of the Written Statement whose very status was sub judice. Such a construction would defeat the object of procedural rules, which is to enable effective adjudication on merits rather than to trap parties in technicalities,” the bench observed.
The Court was dealing with an application filed by the Plaintiff seeking condonation of delay of 13 days in filing replication to the WS filed by the Defendant in its suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered patent.
The Written Statement filed by the Defendant in the present Suit did not automatically come on record, but had to be taken on record subject to condoning the delay in filing the Written Statement.
The delay in filing the Written Statement was condoned on 23.08.2024 and, thereafter, the Written Statement was taken on record on 23.08.2024.
Plaintiff claimed that its replication filed on 05.10.2024 was within the maximum statutorily permissible limit of 45 days ending on 07.10.2024 to be calculated from 23.08.2024 on the date when the Written Statement was taken on record.
Rule 5 of Chapter VII of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 stipulate that the replication has to be filed within 30 days of receipt of WS. The period may be extended by a maximum 15 days if the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by sufficient cause.
The Defendant on the other hand opposed the application, stating that the WS was received by the Plaintiff through email on 16.08.2024, which amounts to receipt of WS for the purposes of DHC Rules.
Disagreeing, the High Court held,
“where a written statement is filed beyond the prescribed period and can come on record only on an application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement being allowed by the court, the period for filing replication would commence from the date when the written statement is taken on record.”
Reliance was placed on SNS Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Ijaz Uddin (2023) where the High Court had held that when the written statement was filed beyond the statutory time limit and was taken on record only upon an application for condonation of delay being allowed by the Court, the aforesaid rule has to be interpreted in a manner that the period of 30 days will begin from the time the written statement is permitted to be taken on record.
It thus held that the Replication filed by the Plaintiffs is within the maximum statutorily permissible limit of 45 days and disposed of the application.
Appearance: For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Dhruv Anand, Ms. Udita Patro and Mr. Dhananjay Khanna, Advocates. For the Defendant : Mr. G. Nataraj and Mr. Rahul Bhujbal, Advocates.
Case title: Helsinn Healthcare Sa & Anr. v. Hetero Healthcare Limited
Case no.: CS(COMM) 347/2024