{"id":361690,"date":"2025-09-26T09:30:31","date_gmt":"2025-09-26T04:00:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=361690"},"modified":"2025-09-29T17:46:08","modified_gmt":"2025-09-29T12:16:08","slug":"bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Litigant cannot be made to suffer on account of lapses of Advocate\u2019s office\u2019; Bombay HC condones 75-day delay in filing written statement"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bombay High Court:<\/span> While considering an interim application filed by a cooperative housing society (applicant), for the condonation of delay of 75 days in filing written statement, a Single Judge Bench of Jitendra Jain, J.<\/span>, held that the limitation for fling the written statement was rightly calculated by the applicant from the date of the service of summons as per the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (‘CPC’). Additionally, the Court opined that the applicants, upon finding out the lapse by the advocate’s office in filing the written statement, were vigilant enough to contact the Advocate themselves. Thereafter, the written statement was immediately finalised and filed in the Court.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court condoned the delay stating that litigant cannot be made to suffer when the lapse was made on the part of the Advocate, especially when the delay was merely of 75 days.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The applicant (original defendant) was issued writ summons with reference to a non-commercial suit filed against it, on 8-3-2023. As per Order 5 Rule 1<\/a> of the CPC<\/a>, the defendant had to file the written statement within 30 days, which had expired on 7-4-2023. The applicant filed the written statement with a delay of 75 days from 8-4-2023. It was contended that the delay was due to the lapse of Advocate’s office who had received the writ of summons but did not inform the Advocate about the same. On inquiry by the office bearers of applicant, the Advocate inquired with his staff and became aware that the writ of summons had been served on 8-3-2023. Thereafter, the Advocate took immediate steps in drafting the written statement, getting it approved by the office bearers of defendant and held conference for finalization of the same. Thus, the applicant had also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing of the written statement, seeking condonation of 75 days delay in the present application.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/h3>\n

Issue 1: What is the starting point for calculating limitation period to file written statement under Order 8 Rule 1<\/a> of CPC<\/a> in case of non-commercial suit?<\/p>\n

The Court opined that the contention of the original plaintiffs that the applicant should have had filed an application before the Court to obtain the copy of the plaint was in contrast with the provisions of CPC and was totally unjustified and such contention was also not backed by any law.<\/p>\n

The Court pointed out that the objective of Order 8 Rule 1<\/a> of CPC<\/a> enabled the defendant to present his defence to the case made out against him by the plaintiff in its plaint. Therefore, unless any defendant is served the copy of the plaint, it would not be possible for him to defend himself. The Court opined that the conjoint reading of Rules 84,87,88 and Order 8 Rule 1<\/a> of the CPC<\/a> clarified that the limitation period would start from the day when the writ of summons along with the copy of the plaint was served on the applicant, which in the instant case was on 8-3-2023 and, therefore, applicant was justified in calculating delay from the said date.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the respondent was wrong in contending that the period of limitation would start from the date on which the vakalatnama was filed i.e. on 11-6-2021, on behalf of applicant.<\/p>\n

Issue 2: Whether the reason given by the applicant for the delay, constituted sufficient cause for condonation in filing written statement?<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the applicant society was run by honorary members, who were vigilant enough to contact the Advocate for filing of the written statement. It found out that lapse was made on the part of the office of the Advocate, who did not inform the Advocate regarding the of writ of summons served upon them. Thereafter, the Advocate took immediate steps for finalising the written statement which was then filed with a delay of 75 days.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that merely because there was lapse on the part of the office of the advocate same should not prevent applicant from filing the written statement belatedly. The Court held that the litigant cannot be made to suffer on account of lapse of the Advocate especially when the delay is only of 75 days. Thus, the Court, referring to the case of Nitin Mahadeo Jawale<\/span> v. Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3468<\/a>, held that such lapse on the part of the Advocate, constituted sufficient ground for the condonation of delay.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court held that the applicant had rightly calculated the delay from the date of service of summons and it was not the duty of the applicant to file application to obtain the copy of the plaint. Additionally, The Court opined that the applicant had shown enough vigilance and the lapse of the part of Advocate was sufficient cause to condone the delay, especially when the delay was merely for 75 days. Therefore, the Court allowed the interim application for the condonation of delay, filed by the applicant.<\/p>\n

[Gautam Dham Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Funds and Properties of Parsi Panchayat, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3326<\/a>, decided on: 20-9-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

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

Advocate for the Plaintiffs-<\/span> Smith Colaco i\/by Mulla & Mulla and Cragie Blunt & Caroe, Advocates<\/p>\n

Advocate for the Defendants-<\/span> Rohaan Cama, Kyrus Modi, Pankaj Pandey, Smit Nagda, Advocates<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Court opined that the applicants, upon finding out the lapse by the advocate’s office in filing the written statement, were vigilant enough to contact the Advocate themselves.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":361706,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2569,39496,89852,67938,32057,89851,30796],"class_list":["post-361690","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-civil-procedure-code-1908","tag-condonation-od-delay","tag-justice-jitendra-jain","tag-limitation-period","tag-order-8-cpc","tag-written-statement"],"yoast_head":"\nLitigant should not suffer due to lapse on part of Advocate's office: Bom HC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay High court condoned delay of 75 days in filing written statement holding that litigant should not suffer due to lapse on part of Advocate's office.\" \/>\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\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u2018Litigant cannot be made to suffer on account of lapses of Advocate\u2019s office\u2019; Bombay HC condones 75-day delay in filing written statement\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High court condoned delay of 75 days in filing written statement holding that litigant should not suffer due to lapse on part of Advocate's office.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/\" \/>\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=\"2025-09-26T04:00:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-09-29T12:16:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/lapse-on-part-of-advocate.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=\"\u2018Litigant cannot be made to suffer on account of lapses of Advocate\u2019s office\u2019; Bombay HC condones 75-day delay in filing written statement\" \/>\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=\"5 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\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/\",\"name\":\"Litigant should not suffer due to lapse on part of Advocate's office: Bom HC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/lapse-on-part-of-advocate.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-09-26T04:00:31+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-09-29T12:16:08+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Bombay High court condoned delay of 75 days in filing written statement holding that litigant should not suffer due to lapse on part of Advocate's office.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/lapse-on-part-of-advocate.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/lapse-on-part-of-advocate.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"lapse on part of advocate\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u2018Litigant cannot be made to suffer on account of lapses of Advocate\u2019s office\u2019; Bombay HC condones 75-day delay in filing written statement\"}]},{\"@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":"Litigant should not suffer due to lapse on part of Advocate's office: Bom HC | SCC Times","description":"Bombay High court condoned delay of 75 days in filing written statement holding that litigant should not suffer due to lapse on part of Advocate's office.","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\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u2018Litigant cannot be made to suffer on account of lapses of Advocate\u2019s office\u2019; Bombay HC condones 75-day delay in filing written statement","og_description":"Bombay High court condoned delay of 75 days in filing written statement holding that litigant should not suffer due to lapse on part of Advocate's office.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-09-26T04:00:31+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-09-29T12:16:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/lapse-on-part-of-advocate.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u2018Litigant cannot be made to suffer on account of lapses of Advocate\u2019s office\u2019; Bombay HC condones 75-day delay in filing written statement","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/","name":"Litigant should not suffer due to lapse on part of Advocate's office: Bom HC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/lapse-on-part-of-advocate.webp","datePublished":"2025-09-26T04:00:31+00:00","dateModified":"2025-09-29T12:16:08+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Bombay High court condoned delay of 75 days in filing written statement holding that litigant should not suffer due to lapse on part of Advocate's office.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/lapse-on-part-of-advocate.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/lapse-on-part-of-advocate.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"lapse on part of advocate"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u2018Litigant cannot be made to suffer on account of lapses of Advocate\u2019s office\u2019; Bombay HC condones 75-day delay in filing written statement"}]},{"@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\/2025\/09\/lapse-on-part-of-advocate.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":212120,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/03\/16\/bom-hc-time-period-fixed-under-or-8-r-1-cpc-is-directory-in-nature-delay-in-filing-written-statement-condoned\/","url_meta":{"origin":361690,"position":0},"title":"Bom HC | Time period fixed under Or. 8 R. 1 CPC is directory in nature; delay in filing written statement condoned","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 16, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court at Goa: C.V. Bhadang, J., condoned a delay of 50 days in filing the written statement. As per facts of the case, in the suit filed by the respondent, the petitioner was served the summons on 10-07-2017; and on 12-8-2017, he sought time to engage a government\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":[]},{"id":331095,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/19\/filing-written-statement-after-expiry-30-days-can-accepted-if-there-is-application-writing-for-condonation-of-delay-madras-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":361690,"position":1},"title":"Filing of written statement after expiry of 30 days can be accepted only if there is an application in writing for condonation of delay: Madras HC","author":"Apoorva","date":"September 19, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"If the power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way.","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\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":341331,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/13\/dhc-excludes-time-spent-in-mediation-for-calculating-limitation-to-file-written-statement\/","url_meta":{"origin":361690,"position":2},"title":"\u2018Forcing to file written statement during mediation will hamper entire mediation process\u2019: Delhi HC excludes time spent in mediation for calculating limitation to file written statement","author":"Arushi","date":"February 13, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Forcing the parties to file a written statement or to complete the pleadings during the process of mediation will prevent the parties in freely communicating with each other, which they have not been able to do since the dispute started.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":287067,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/17\/rejection-of-written-statement-by-commercial-court-just-kerala-hc-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":361690,"position":3},"title":"Kerala High Court upholds Commercial Court’s refusal to accept delayed written statement","author":"Ridhi","date":"March 17, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Referring to the amended portion of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with Supreme Court's interpretation, Kerala High Court found the Commercial Court's refusal for acceptance after delay in filing written statement beyond 120 days justified.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Kerala High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-764.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-764.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-764.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-764.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":374791,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/bom-hc-review-petition-645-day-delay-not-condonable\/","url_meta":{"origin":361690,"position":4},"title":"Bombay HC: 645-day delay in review petition not condonable; reasons such as counsel search, court’s vacation, and family wedding not ‘sufficient cause’","author":"Soumya Yadav","date":"February 5, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe attempt was not made within the limitation period provided under the Limitation Act, but almost after 1 year from the date of the impugned judgment and much after the expiry of limitation period.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"645-day delay not condonable","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/645-day-delay-not-condonable.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/645-day-delay-not-condonable.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/645-day-delay-not-condonable.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/645-day-delay-not-condonable.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":207127,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/21\/appeal-filed-along-with-application-for-condonation-of-delay-when-dismissed-is-a-decree-within-section-22-cpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":361690,"position":5},"title":"Appeal filed along with application for condonation of delay when dismissed is a decree within Section 2(2) CPC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 21, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Dr A.K. Rath, J., dismissed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge, whereby the Appellate Court had dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.\u00a0 The petitioners were aggrieved by this\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\/361690","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=361690"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/361690\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/361706"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=361690"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=361690"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=361690"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}