Non-service of a replication is a curable defect, not a non-est filing.

The Plaintiff filed its Replication and affidavit of admission/denial on 24 February 2025, within the initial filing period, but did not serve the Defendant and described the pleading as a “Rejoinder”.

The Registry raised objections, including the absence of proof of service. The Plaintiff corrected the description but did not serve the pleading until 28 July 2025; the Joint Registrar consequently declined to take it on record for failure to remove the objections within the prescribed period.

In a prior chamber appeal, the Plaintiff was permitted to seek condonation of delay in re-filing. The Joint Registrar allowed that application, subject to costs of ₹10,000. The Defendant’s present chamber appeal challenged that order, arguing that the original filing was non-est for want of service and that the delay was not sufficiently explained.

1. Whether the Replication first filed on 24 February 2025 was non-est because it was not served on the Defendant as required by Chapter VII Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

2. Whether the Plaintiff’s explanation justified condonation of the delay in re-filing the Replication, and whether the Joint Registrar’s order warranted interference.

Chapter VII Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 requires a Replication to be filed within 30 days of receipt of the Written Statement, permits an extension of up to a further 15 days for sufficient cause in exceptional and unavoidable circumstances, and requires advance service of the Replication and its accompanying documents on the Defendant; the Replication is not to be accepted unless it bears the required endorsement of service.

The Court treated the service requirement as a condition to acceptance of the Replication, not as a basis for treating the initial filing as non-est where the Registry had withheld acceptance until service was completed.

The Court found that the record established an initial filing on 24 February 2025, so the Defendant’s contention that there was no proof of filing failed. Although service was required under Rule 5, the Registry had raised the non-service objection and the Replication was not accepted until service was effected. The Court therefore held that the lack of service did not make the initial filing non-est.

On re-filing delay, the Joint Registrar had accepted the Plaintiff’s explanation concerning the intervening summer vacation and the departure of counsel’s clerk, noting that the initial filing was within the limitation period and the delay related only to re-filing. The Court upheld the decision to condone the delay but increased the costs to reflect the circumstances.

It upheld condonation of the re-filing delay but modified the order by increasing costs payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendant from ₹10,000 to ₹20,000, payable within four weeks. The appeal and stay application were disposed of accordingly.