Bare denial by defendant does not invite framing of issue in a Commercial Suit, Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that bare denial of an assertion in a plaint does not constitute a substantial ground to invite the framing of an issue on the subject in a commercial suit..Observing that the Commercial Courts Act aimed to expedite the disposal of commercial suits, the Court remarked,.“…expeditious disposal would not be possible if each and every denial were to invite the framing of an issue.”.The Court noticed that a practice had developed whereby each and every assertion in the pleadings of the opposite party was being denied with the phrase “incorrect and denied” found multiple times in each pleading..Discouraging attempts to “to play a game of litigation” by framing a large number of issues on the basis of “denials” in each suit, the Court added,.“Attempt is made to play a game of litigation in Courts, governed by law, by putting on the opposite party, the onus of proving each and every plea, most of which are not really disputed, and in an attempt to take advantage, in my view unfair, of lapse in proving any of the pleas…The Courts are not required to pedantically frame such issues and to allow such a game to be played.”.The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw in an application by the defendant seeking amendment of issues in a suit, after the issues were framed on July 24, 2018, and the witness of the plaintiff had been partly cross-examined..The defendant contended that the said issue was contained in the proposed issues handed over to the Court, but was yet to be framed..The Court noted that there was no explanation as to why the counsel for the defendant did not notice such non-framing till the filing of this application and why he allowed the proceedings to move further, given that he was present when the order of July 24 was dictated in open Court..It was observed that as per records, it was clear that the issues were framed with the consent of the parties and thus the defendant is deemed to have consented to only the issues framed on July 24..It further clarified that the mere proposal of an issue does not necessarily require its framing..“Issues are to be framed only on substantial pleas of laws and facts and not on each plea of law.”.Rejecting the defendant’s claim, the Court stated that for the desired issue to be framed and to constitute a substantial plea, the defendant ought to have taken specific pleas with respect to the constitution of the plaintiff company, the person who was actually competent sue as per the laws of the country in which the plaintiff company was incorporated etc..“A bare denial does not suffice, specially when in the event of the plaintiff in this suit for recovery of money succeeding, it is not as if the money therein can be recovered by any person other than the plaintiff. The money can be recovered and will go in the account of the plaintiff only and in this case, also by repatriation to the country in which the plaintiff is incorporated.“.The Court also perused the cross-examination conducted by the counsel for the defendant and observed that the witness was quizzed on matters beyond the issues framed in this suit, and thus no reliance could be placed on the same..“It is unfortunate that neither the counsel for the plaintiff nor the learned Joint Registrar who was recording the evidence, noticed the same and allowed questions beyond issues to be asked. Thus no reliance can be placed on the cross-examination conducted on 30th July, 2019 which itself is beyond the scope of the proceedings and ought not to have been conducted/permitted.”.Before concluding, the Court nonetheless granted an opportunity to the defendant to pursue framing of the desired issue after filing documents in proof of the issue, filing fresh evidence, and conducting fresh cross-examination. This, on the condition that the defendant was willing to reimburse the costs of the same to the plaintiff, estimated at Rs. 5 lakh..The opportunity was, however, not willing to do the same. This prompted the Court to record,.“The same shows the frivolous manner in which an issue is sought to be raised, to delay the proceedings and perhaps to delay the passing of a decree for recovery of money against the applicant/defendant….…Issues are framed on the basis of the pleadings and once the pleadings in this respect are not found to be substantial and the counsel for the applicant/defendant on 24th July, 2018 consented to non-framing of the said issue, the said arguments are not open to the applicant/defendant…”.In view of the above, the application was dismissed..Read the Order: