% + * 22.07.2003 Present; McB.R. Sharma for the Appellant. Mr.Y.K. Saxena for the ResJX>ndent. F AO No. 19912001 The respondent had filed suit for recovery of Rs.2,09,329/- against the appellant. Despite adjournments wtitten statement was not filed aod the Court, therefore, by ao order dated on 2.8.1999, passed a decree uoder Older 8 Rule 10 CPC against the appellant. TI,is decree was sought to be set aside by the appellant b.y filing ao application under Order 9 Rule 13 cpc. There was delay of three days 11.1 filing the application and the Trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the applicalion on the ground of the same being barred by limitation. This order has now been chal1enged by the appellant by filing the present appeal. One of the grounds taken by learned counsel for the res,lX)ndent to opIX'se the appea1 is that no application was filed by the appellant for condonalion of delay and consequently the Trial COutt was justified in dismissing the application for seltjng aside ex-parte decree. There is no doubt that the party who is seeking to have the delay condoned is required to explain the reasons for such delay in filing the application and apply to the Court for condonation of delay, however, it is not mandatory that such an application must be in writing. The. party in the facts of a case can also make an oral prayer for condonatioil of such delay. The Tl.ial Comt in the instant case has not considered this aspect of the matter and has dismissed the application for setting aside ex.-parte decree i1.1 a lDutine manner on1y 0[1 tbe ground that the application was baned by limitation. The Older of the Trial Comt, therefore, cannot be sustained. Instead of remanding the case to the Trail COUlt for deciding the application on medts, learned counsel for both the p.arties have submitted that the Signing Date:08.11.2024 17:06:42 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC may also be disposed of by this Comt on the basis of material on record. I have gone through the application as well as the Trial Court record and have also heard leaned counsel for the parties and I am satisfied that the delay in filing the application was not intentiona1 and sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay. Even othelwise there was only three days delay in filing the application and it was not such an inordinate delay which should have non-suited the appellant. Appellant has given reasons as to why the application was filed late and they in my view, are sufficient to condone the delay in filing the application. I, accordingly, condone the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 1.3 cpc. Coming now to the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, I find that the advance copy of the wdttcn statement had already been supplied to counsel for the respondent and wlitten statement, duly signed by the defenclant, \vas also handed over to the counsel for filing 11.1 Comt. \Vtitten statement could not be filed in COUlt 01.1 the day fixed for the purpose as the counsel could not reach the Coult in time. This, in my opinion, was sufficient cause for setting aside the ex-parte decree. I, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and also set aside the ex··parte decree subject, hmvever, to payment of Rs.lO,(X)()f.· as costs payable to the plaintiff. The amount dePJsited in this Court by the appellant pursuant to the orders dated 23.4.2001., shall remain deposited in this Court till theclisposal of the suit and the office is directed to place the same in a fixed deposit initially for a pel.icxi of two years. The appellant is diuxted to file the wtitten statement 00 the datefi.'{ed by this Court for appearance of the palties before· the Trial Court. Tn case the written statement is not filed \>vithin the time granted by this Court, the Trial Court win be at hbelty to proceed agaimt the defendantiappellant in accordance wi.th law. / 2003. '"" '-3- The tdal court file be sent back immediately. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial COUlt on 3;d September, July 22, 2003 'os' (S.K.MAHAJAN) ]TJDGE ,.' I "' , 30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM 3984/2013 in F AO 199/2001 M/S.VICTORIA FOODS P.LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr.Rajiv, Adv. versus M/S.MOONLIGHT PRINTERS & PAPER ..... Respondent Through Mr.Rajesh Mahindru, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALl ORDER 0/0 01.05.2013 1. The learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the amount which has been deposited in the present appeal as well as the bank guarantee which has been furnished by the appellant may be made subject to such orders as may be passed by the appellate Court. 2. In view of the statement made by both the learned counsel for the parties, the amount/bank guarantee which has been furnished to this Court is permitted to be released to the respondent, subject to such orders as may be passed by the appellate Court. 3. The application stands disposed of. V.K. SHALl, J MAY 01, 2013 ':;""£CI'I + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI F AO 199/2001 MlS.VICTORIA FOODS P.LTD. . .... Appellant Through : None versus M/S.MOONLIGHT PRINTERS & PAPER ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Rajesh Mahendra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK ORDER 0/0 19.08.2014 CM AppI. No. 13326/2014 (for-release the amount) Advance copy has already been served on the appellant. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Appellate Court on 5th July, 2014, pursuant whereof appeal has already been disposed of, it is ordered that lying deposited in this Court be released to the C. respondent together with interest accrued thereon, if any. As regards bank guarantee is concerned, the same is discharged and returned to appellant. Application is disposed of in the above terms. AUGUST 19, 2014 rb A.K. PATHAK, J.