{"id":304376,"date":"2023-10-11T15:00:38","date_gmt":"2023-10-11T09:30:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=304376"},"modified":"2023-10-19T10:46:58","modified_gmt":"2023-10-19T05:16:58","slug":"dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Court cannot presume disobedience; strict and irrefutable proof of disobedience required for punitive action under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC: Delhi High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> In a case wherein, an application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 2-A<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (‘CPC’), C. Hari Shankar, J.*<\/span> opined that there had to be strict and irrefutable proof of disobedience for punitive action to follow under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC and since there was no conclusive proof against Defendant 1, the present case did not justify the conviction and punishment of Defendant 1 for violating the directions contained in order dated 08-07-2021.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

In the instant case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants had violated the directions contained in the order dated 08-07-2021, whereby the defendants were injuncted during the pendency of the suit from using the mark ‘CrossFit’ or any other identical mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff carried out multiple investigations at defendants’ premises which revealed that the defendants were continuing to use the impugned mark ‘SFC CROSSFIT’ and the impugned logo \"\"<\/a> not only at the premises of the gym which was being run under the said name, but also on online trade directories.<\/p>\n

Thus, the plaintiff in its application prayed that punitive action should be taken against Defendant 1 under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, in order to ascertain the exact extent and nature of violation, the Court appointed an advocate of this Court as a Local Commissioner, to visit the premises of the defendants, to remove any hoardings, billboards or any other material bearing the mark ‘SFCCROSSFIT’ or ‘CrossFit’, prepare an inventory thereof, and also examine the accounts of the defendants. The Local Commissioner filed his report, according to which three flex hoardings, stickers affixed at the bottom of the stairs and the front page of the six membership application forms were found at the premises which were seized and taken into custody by the Local Commissioner.<\/p>\n

However, Defendant 1 contended that he never received any summons or notice in the present matter and further stated that vide partnership deed dated 10-12-2016, he was a partner with six others in the firm ‘SFC CROSSFIT’ to provide gym services at the premises. The said partnership was further dissolved vide deed of dissolution dated 28-05-2019, and after the dissolution, Defendant 1 had nothing to do with the partnership firm or the gym.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/p>\n

The Court relied on Food Corporation of India<\/span> v. Sukh Deo Prasad<\/span>, (2009) 5 SCC 665<\/a>, wherein it was held that the power exercised under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC was similar to the power of the civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971<\/a> and the disobedience had to be proved ‘beyond any doubt’ by the person who complained of such disobedience.<\/p>\n

The Court further relied on U.C. Surendranath<\/span> v. Mambally’s Bakery<\/span>, (2019) 20 SCC 666<\/a> and opined that there had to be strict and irrefutable proof of disobedience for punitive action to follow under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC. The Court further opined that “in its zeal to uphold its majesty and ensure implementation of rule of law, the court cannot hold a person guilty of violation of its orders and proceed punitively against him merely because the circumstances give rise to a strong suspicion of the order of the court having been disobeyed. The principle that suspicion, howsoever strong, can be no substitute for proof may be justifiably be invoked while dealing with application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC”.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court opined that the present case did not justify the conviction and punishment of Defendant 1 for violating the order dated 08-07-2021, because there was no satisfactory proof that before the visit by the Local Commissioner, Defendant 1 was served with the summon. However, regarding the summon being served at the email ID of the SFC CrossFit Gym, the Court agreed with the respondents contention that since, Defendant 1 had dissociated himself with the gym, and its activities after 28-05-2019, the email ID of the gym could not be regarded as his contact email ID. Moreover, the Court opined that there was no conclusive proof that Defendant 1 had associated himself with the activity of gym after dissolution of partnership.<\/p>\n

Further, regarding the contention that name and phone number of Defendant 1 continued to be reflected on the gym’s website, the Court opined that even if Defendant 1 was conscious of these facts and took no steps to remove it, that also did not constitute as disobedience. The Court opined that if there was no convincing proof of violation of the directions contained in order dated 08-07-2021, other considerations cease to be of relevance.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court opined that Defendant 1 was not guilty of disobeying the order dated 08-07-2021, therefore the Court dismissed the application and held that it could not punish Defendant 1 within legitimate peripheries of Order 39 Rule 2 of the CPC.<\/p>\n

[Cross Fit LLC v. Renjith Kunnumal, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6261<\/a>, decided on 09-10-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment authored by- Justice C. Hari Shankar<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Plaintiff:<\/span> Saif Khan, Shobhit Agrawal and Prajjwal Kushwaha, Advocates<\/p>\n

For the Defendants<\/span>: Akash Vajpai and Sudheesh K.K, Advocates<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“In its zeal to ensure implementation of rule of law, the court cannot hold a person guilty of violation of its orders and proceed punitively against him merely because the circumstances give rise to a strong suspicion of the court’s order been disobeyed.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":303940,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[39496,2543,61809,61811,61812,61810,39659],"class_list":["post-304376","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-civil-procedure-code-1908","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-irrefutable","tag-order-39-rule-2a-cpc","tag-presume-disobedience","tag-proof-of-disobedience","tag-punitive-action"],"yoast_head":"\nIrrefutable proof of disobedience required for punitive action under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC: Delhi HC| SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court opined that present case did not justify the conviction and punishment of Defendant 1 for violating the directions contained in order dated 08-07-2021.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Court cannot presume disobedience; strict and irrefutable proof of disobedience required for punitive action under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC: Delhi High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court opined that present case did not justify the conviction and punishment of Defendant 1 for violating the directions contained in order dated 08-07-2021.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-10-11T09:30:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-10-19T05:16:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Court cannot presume disobedience; strict and irrefutable proof of disobedience required for punitive action under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC: Delhi High Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Irrefutable proof of disobedience required for punitive action under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC: Delhi HC| SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-10-11T09:30:38+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-10-19T05:16:58+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court opined that present case did not justify the conviction and punishment of Defendant 1 for violating the directions contained in order dated 08-07-2021.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"delhi high court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Court cannot presume disobedience; strict and irrefutable proof of disobedience required for punitive action under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC: Delhi High Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Irrefutable proof of disobedience required for punitive action under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC: Delhi HC| SCC Blog","description":"Delhi High Court opined that present case did not justify the conviction and punishment of Defendant 1 for violating the directions contained in order dated 08-07-2021.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Court cannot presume disobedience; strict and irrefutable proof of disobedience required for punitive action under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC: Delhi High Court","og_description":"Delhi High Court opined that present case did not justify the conviction and punishment of Defendant 1 for violating the directions contained in order dated 08-07-2021.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-10-11T09:30:38+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-10-19T05:16:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Court cannot presume disobedience; strict and irrefutable proof of disobedience required for punitive action under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC: Delhi High Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/","name":"Irrefutable proof of disobedience required for punitive action under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC: Delhi HC| SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","datePublished":"2023-10-11T09:30:38+00:00","dateModified":"2023-10-19T05:16:58+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Delhi High Court opined that present case did not justify the conviction and punishment of Defendant 1 for violating the directions contained in order dated 08-07-2021.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"delhi high court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/11\/dhc-irrefutable-proof-of-disobedience-required-for-punitive-action-under-order-39-rule-2a-of-cpc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Court cannot presume disobedience; strict and irrefutable proof of disobedience required for punitive action under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC: Delhi High Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":271413,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/09\/punjab-and-haryana-high-court-order-refusing-appointment-of-local-commissioner-under-order-xxvi-rule-9-of-cpc-1908-does-not-affect-rights-of-parties-no-revision-available\/","url_meta":{"origin":304376,"position":0},"title":"Punjab and Haryana High Court | Order refusing appointment of Local Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC, 1908 does not affect rights of parties; No revision available","author":"Editor","date":"August 9, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: Alka Sarin, J., dismissed the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge vide which the application for appointment was dismissed on the ground that the order refusing appointment does not decide any\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Punjab and Haryana High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/punjab_and_haryana_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/punjab_and_haryana_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/punjab_and_haryana_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/punjab_and_haryana_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/punjab_and_haryana_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":379683,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/30\/del-hc-order-7-rule-11-cpc-plea-does-not-revive-ws-filing-period\/","url_meta":{"origin":304376,"position":1},"title":"Del HC: Order 7 Rule 11 application filed after expiry of statutory time doesn\u2019t revive lapsed right to file Written Statement","author":"Prarthana Gupta","date":"March 30, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cFiling of an application for rejection of plaint by Defendant 2 after lapse of statutory period for filing written statement, will not entitle Defendant 2 for grant of any extension of time for filing written statement on that ground.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Order 7 Rule 11 CPC","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Order-7-Rule-11-CPC.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Order-7-Rule-11-CPC.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Order-7-Rule-11-CPC.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Order-7-Rule-11-CPC.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":268455,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/15\/a-suit-cannot-be-summarily-decreed-until-the-claim-stands-duly-proved-mad-hc-analyses-rules-of-evidence-vis-a-vis-order-xiii-a-cpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":304376,"position":2},"title":"A suit cannot be summarily decreed until the claim stands duly proved; Mad HC analyses Rules of Evidence Vis a Vis Order XIII A CPC","author":"Editor","date":"June 15, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court: Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy, J. remarked that a suit cannot be summarily decreed at the instance of a plaintiff unless such plaintiff satisfies the court that the suit claim stands duly proved.\u00a0 The facts of the case are such that the first defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":329960,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/03\/delhi-court-seeks-response-suresh-nakhua-for-defective-affidavits-in-defamation-case-against-dhruv-rathee\/","url_meta":{"origin":304376,"position":3},"title":"[Defamation case against Dhruv Rathee] Delhi Court seeks response from BJP spokesperson Suresh Nakhua for defective affidavits on verification of plaint","author":"Editor","date":"September 3, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"BJP\u2019s Mumbai spokesperson Suresh Karamshi Nakhua filed a defamation suit against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee for his video titled \u2018My Reply to Godi Youtubers\u2019.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Saket Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Saket-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Saket-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Saket-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Saket-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":286916,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/15\/winds-of-change-in-commercial-disputes-via-summary-judgments-%e2%80%95-the-why-the-how-and-the-way-forward\/","url_meta":{"origin":304376,"position":4},"title":"Winds of Change in Commercial Disputes via Summary Judgments \u2015 The Why, the How and the Way Forward","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 15, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Ishita Chandra\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-740.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-740.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-740.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-740.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":99321,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/02\/04\/court-clarifies-order-xiii-a-of-code-of-civil-procedure-1908\/","url_meta":{"origin":304376,"position":5},"title":"Court clarifies Order XIII-A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908","author":"Saba","date":"February 4, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: The Divisional Bench of Badar Durez and Ashutosh Kumar, JJ. while disposing of an appeal gave relief to party whose suit was dismissed at the admission stage \u00a0by invoking the provisions of Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was held by the Court\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/304376","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=304376"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/304376\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/303940"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=304376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=304376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=304376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}