The counsel for the plaintiff states that a direction is sought for limiting the time for addressing oral arguments. {Para 4}
Rule 2 inter alia includes fixing the date on which oral arguments are to be heard by the Court and setting time limits for the parties and their advocates to address oral arguments.{Para 8}.
12. The counsel for the defendant of course controverts but is unable to. However, on enquiry as to how much time the defendant will take to address arguments, refuses to commit.
13. The application is disposed of, binding the plaintiff to the aforesaid time limits and clarifying, that after the opening arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff, the Court shall, if need be, limit the time for addressing oral arguments on behalf of the defendant.
In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
(Before Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.)
Roland Corporation Vs Sandeep Jain
CS (COMM) 565/2018,
Decided on January 15, 2019
Citation:The Order of the Court was delivered by
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.:—
IA No. 543/2019 (of the plaintiff under Order XV-A CPC as applicable to Commercial Suits)
1. The plaintiff in this suit, already listed on 10th April, 2019 for hearing final arguments, seeks Case Management Hearing.
2. The counsel for the defendant appears on advance notice.
3. I have enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff as to what directions are required at this stage in the Case Management Hearing, even if Case Management Hearing is permitted to be held at this stage.
4. The counsel for the plaintiff states that a direction is sought for limiting the time for addressing oral arguments.
5. On further enquiry, as to how much time the counsel for the plaintiff will himself take in final hearing, the counsel for the plaintiff states that he will take not more than 45 minutes in his opening argument and not more than 30 minutes in his rejoinder arguments.
6. Rule 1 of Order XV-A of the CPC as applicable to commercial suit, mandates the first Case Management Hearing “not later than 4 weeks from the date of filing of affidavit of admission/denial of documents by all the parties”. No Case Management Hearing was held at that stage since Order XV-A came into force only subsequently.
7. Rule 5 of Order XV-A of the CPC provides that the Court may, if necessary, also hold Case Management Hearing “any time during the trial”, to issue appropriate orders so as to ensure adherence by the parties to the dates fixed under Rule 2 and to facilitate speedy disposal of the suit.
8. Rule 2 inter alia includes fixing the date on which oral arguments are to be heard by the Court and setting time limits for the parties and their advocates to address oral arguments.
9. I have enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff, whether the expression “during the trial” would include this stage also, when recording of evidence is already over and the suit is ripe for final hearing.
10. The counsel for the plaintiff states that provisions of Rule 2(a) have to be read and interpreted in accordance with the objective thereof. Attention is also invited to Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Ltd. (1998) 5 SCC 69 interpreting the word ‘trial’ in the context of Section 10 of CPC and holding that bar therein “to proceed with the trial of any suit” comes into operation after leave to defend is granted. It was reasoned, that the word ‘trial’ is of wide import and in its widest sense would include the proceedings right from institution of suit to the final determination by a judgment or decree; however, whether widest meaning is to be given or it should be construed narrowly, has to depend upon the nature and object of the provision and the context in which it is used. Attention is also invited to Rule 1 of Part F of Chapter I of Part C titled “Instructions to Civil Courts in Delhi” of High Court Rules and Orders, prescribing that trial of a suit falls in two broad divisions - the first leading upto and including framing of issues and the second, consisting of hearing of evidence produced by parties on those issues and decision thereof. However, in my opinion the said instructions would have no application to suits on the original side of this Court.
11. Rule 3 of Order XV-A titled “Time limit for completion of trial” provides that in fixing dates and setting time limits for the purpose of Rule 2, the Court shall ensure that arguments are closed not later than six months from the date of the first Case Management Hearing. The same indicates that, at least for the purpose of Order XV-A of the CPC, trial would include this stage as well.
12. The counsel for the defendant of course controverts but is unable to. However, on enquiry as to how much time the defendant will take to address arguments, refuses to commit.
13. The application is disposed of, binding the plaintiff to the aforesaid time limits and clarifying, that after the opening arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff, the Court shall, if need be, limit the time for addressing oral arguments on behalf of the defendant.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment