Introduction

This decision addresses a recurring and practical procedural question on the Original Side of the Delhi High Court: when does the statutory period for filing a replication begin under Rule 5 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (“DHC OS Rules”), in a case where the defendant’s written statement (WS) is filed beyond time and is taken on record only after condonation of delay (and, in some cases, upon payment of costs)?

The question arose in the context of a patent infringement suit—Helsinn Healthcare SA & Anr., patentees of Indian Patent No. 426553, suing Hetero Healthcare Limited for permanent injunction, damages, rendition of accounts and delivery up. An ad-interim injunction was granted on 30 April 2024 restraining the defendant from dealing in its product ‘NETUPIN’ or any other product infringing the plaintiffs’ patent.

At the heart of the present order is I.A. 41780/2024 by the plaintiffs under Section 151 CPC, seeking condonation of a 13-day delay in filing replication. The procedural timeline and the legal construction of Rule 5—using the phrases “receipt of the written statement,” “shall be filed,” and the emphatic “but not thereafter”—framed the dispute.

Factual Timeline and Procedural Posture

• 30.04.2024: The suit is first listed; ad-interim injunction granted restraining the defendant in relation to ‘NETUPIN’.
• 21.05.2024: Summons served on the defendant.
• 16.08.2024: Defendant files WS (57 days beyond 30 days) and serves it by email on plaintiffs’ counsel the same day.
• 23.08.2024: Learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) condones delay and directs the WS to be taken on record, subject to costs of ₹3,000/-.
• 30.08.2024: Defendant pays the costs.
• 05.10.2024: Plaintiffs file replication along with the present application, asserting compliance within the maximum 45-day period computed from 23.08.2024.

Issues

Core Issue: For the purposes of Rule 5, Chapter VII, DHC OS Rules, does the period for filing replication (30 days + a condonable 15 days, “but not thereafter”) commence:

• from the date of “receipt of the written statement” (i.e., service), even if the WS is filed belatedly, or
• from the date on which the belated WS is formally “taken on record” upon condonation (and, where applicable, only after payment of the preconditional costs)?

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that where a written statement is filed belatedly and comes on record only after condonation of delay, the replication timeline under Rule 5 of Chapter VII of the DHC OS Rules is to be computed from the date the written statement is taken on record (and, as earlier decisions note, where taking on record is subject to payment of costs, from the date of payment of those costs), not from the date of mere service of the written statement.

Applying this construction, the Court found that the plaintiffs’ replication, filed on 05.10.2024, fell within the maximum statutorily permissible period of 45 days counted from 23.08.2024 (the date on which the WS was taken on record). The Court consequently condoned the 13-day delay beyond the base 30-day period (but within the 45-day ceiling) and directed that the replication be taken on record.

The application was disposed of accordingly, and the matter was listed for further proceedings on 14.01.2026.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1) SNS Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Ijaz Uddin, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 787

The Court quoted and endorsed SNS Products, which squarely addressed the start-point conundrum. SNS held that while Rule 5 ordinarily counts 30 days from “receipt of the WS,” a purposive interpretation is mandated when the WS is filed belatedly and is taken on record only after condonation:

“…where the written statement was filed beyond the statutory time limit and was taken on record only upon an application for condonation of delay being allowed by the Court, the aforesaid rule has to be interpreted in a manner that the period of 30 days will begin from the time the written statement is permitted to be taken on record… The plaintiff would be required to file replication only once the condonation in delay is allowed and the written statement is taken on record.”

This reasoning is central: the plaintiff’s need to file replication crystallizes only when the WS enters the record. If condonation is refused, no replication is required; hence it is illogical to start time from mere service while the WS’s status is sub judice.

2) Aroti Sarkar & Anr. v. Ashok Sarkar & Ors., order dated 05.12.2023 in CS (OS) 823/2022

Aroti Sarkar extended SNS by addressing the situation where “taking on record” is expressly made conditional on costs. It held that if payment of costs is a necessary precondition to taking the WS on record, the replication clock does not start until the costs are paid. The Court in Helsinn quoted this and acknowledged the principle.

3) Parmeet Singh Anand v. Subhash Chand Aggarwal (29.08.2024, CS(COMM) 824/2022); Tata Sons v. Marvel Ltd. (19.12.2024, CS(COMM) 724/2024); Quasar Airlines (P) Ltd. v. Shaurya Aeronautics (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2821; Neeraj Saran Srivastava v. Loudon Owen & Ors., 2025:DHC:283; Bunch Microtechnologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Creator Economy Tech Pvt. Ltd. (14.03.2024, CS(OS) 14/2023)

These decisions, cited by the plaintiffs and noted by the Court, reflect a consistent trend in purposively construing Rule 5 in belated-WS scenarios: the replication period commences when the WS is lawfully on record. Where costs are a precondition, several orders (including Neeraj Saran Srivastava and Bunch Microtechnologies) have clarified the clock starts upon payment of costs.

4) Ram Swarup Lugani v. Nirmal Lugani & Ors. (single judge, division bench, and Supreme Court SLP order); Louis Dreyfus v. Nutralite Agro, 2024:DHC:238; Delhi Gymkhana Club v. Col. Ashish Khanna, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7022; Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., (2001) 8 SCC 470

The defendant relied on these authorities to press the mandatory nature of the “30 + 15 days, but not thereafter” cap under Rule 5. The Court accepted the general proposition but distinguished their ratio: those cases dealt with whether the outer limit of 45 days can be breached or condoned further (it cannot), not with the starting point for counting days in cases of belated WS. Thus, they were inapposite to the precise question at hand.

5) Presto Stantest Pvt. Ltd. v. Pacorr Testing Instruments Pvt. Ltd., 2023:DHC:9461 and allied orders (FITJEE Ltd. v. Vidya Mandir Classes; Shri Ram Housing Finance; Asha v. Rajbala; Smt. Saroj v. Smt. Uma; Dr. Reddy’s v. Wockhardt; Pradeep Kumar v. Sudesh Bhatia; Mrs. Bushra Shuaib v. Mr. Hilal Ahmed)

These were cited to argue that “email service” is good service and that the replication timeline runs from service. The Court clarified that, while that may be correct in ordinary cases (where the WS is filed within time), it does not resolve the problem presented when the WS is belated and contingent on a successful condonation application. In such cases, the “receipt” language yields to a purposive reading anchored in “taking on record.”

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

• Text versus context: Rule 5 says replication “shall be filed within 30 days of receipt of the written statement,” with a further 15-day extension “but not thereafter.” The Court accepted the mandatory nature of the ceiling but held that the textual trigger of “receipt” must be purposively understood in belated-WS situations. The necessity of a replication itself arises only when the WS is taken on record.
• Procedural logic: If condonation is refused, the WS never becomes part of the pleadings, and no replication is needed. It would be illogical and unfair to start counting from a served—but legally uncertain—document, compelling plaintiffs to file “contingent” replications.
• Harmony with earlier case law: The Court aligned with SNS Products and Aroti Sarkar:
  • Where WS is belated, the clock starts when the Court takes the WS on record.
  • If taking on record is subject to costs, time begins when those costs are paid (as several orders have held). In Helsinn, the Court noted both dates (23.08.2024 order; costs paid 30.08.2024) and found the replication timely even on the earlier date.
• Preserving the “hard stop” of 45 days: The judgment does not dilute the “but not thereafter” constraint. It fixes the start date in belated-WS cases without undermining the mandatory nature of the 45-day outer limit.
• Application to facts: Counting from 23.08.2024:
  • 30 days ended on 22.09.2024;
  • 45 days ended on 07.10.2024;
  • Replication filed on 05.10.2024 was within the 45-day cap. The Court therefore condoned the 13-day delay beyond the initial 30-day window and took the replication on record.

C. Impact and Significance

Immediate procedural clarity: The ruling consolidates the purposive interpretation that has been gaining traction in the Delhi High Court. In belated-WS situations, litigants and the Registry can now confidently compute the replication deadline from the “taking on record” date (and, where applicable, from the date preconditional costs are paid).

Fairness and efficiency: The approach prevents forced, speculative replications filed while the status of the WS is uncertain—thus avoiding waste and ensuring pleadings crystallize only when they lawfully exist on record. It aligns procedure with substance, enabling effective adjudication on merits.

Practice discipline for defendants: Defendants who have filed WS beyond time have a strong incentive to promptly prosecute their condonation applications and pay costs quickly, because only then does the replication clock start running for the plaintiff.

Consistency with mandatory timelines: The decision faithfully preserves the sanctity of the “but not thereafter” outer limit, steering clear of any suggestion that Rule 5’s cap can be extended. It merely locates the correct start point in belated-WS circumstances.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Written Statement (WS): The defendant’s primary pleading responding to the plaint.
• Replication: The plaintiff’s response to the WS. Under Rule 5, Chapter VII, DHC OS Rules, it must be filed within 30 days of the trigger event, extendable by a further 15 days “but not thereafter.”
• “Taken on record”: An administrative-judicial act by which the court/registry accepts a document as part of the record. If a WS is filed late, it enters the record only after the court condones the delay (and any preconditions, such as payment of costs, are satisfied).
• Condonation of delay: Judicial forgiveness of delay upon “sufficient cause.” On the Original Side, the DHC OS Rules—being lex specialis—govern specific procedural timelines and consequences, often strictly.
• “But not thereafter”: A phrase signalling a hard statutory stop. As explained by the Supreme Court in Popular Construction and applied by Delhi High Court in cases like Ram Swarup Lugani, courts cannot extend time beyond such a cap.
• Purposive interpretation: Reading a rule in light of its purpose and practical operation, to avoid absurd or unfair outcomes that a purely literal reading might produce.

Practice Pointers

• For plaintiffs:
  • In belated-WS situations, docket the date on which the WS is taken on record (and, where applicable, the date on which costs are paid) as the trigger for replication deadlines.
  • Remember that although the outer limit is 45 days, a replication filed after 30 days requires showing “sufficient cause” for the delay; be prepared to justify the extension within the Rule’s framework and to pay costs where ordered.
  • Ensure compliance with the service and endorsement requirements in Rule 5 (advance copy, legible documents, endorsement of service).
• For defendants:
  • If your WS is late, promptly move for condonation and pay any costs without delay; until then, the replication clock will not begin to run against the plaintiff.
  • Do not rely solely on email service of a belated WS to assert that the replication period has started; await the order “taking the WS on record.”
• For case management and registry:
  • Orders should clearly record whether taking the WS on record is subject to costs, and specify that the WS will be treated as on record only upon payment, to avoid ambiguity in computing replication deadlines.

Conclusion

Helsinn Healthcare SA & Anr. v. Hetero Healthcare Ltd. delivers a carefully reasoned and practically important clarification of Rule 5, Chapter VII of the DHC OS Rules. The Court reaffirms that while the 45-day ceiling for filing replication remains sacrosanct, the point at which that timeline begins shifts in belated-WS cases from the date of “receipt” (service) to the date the WS is “taken on record” (and, where applicable, to the date preconditional costs are paid).

This purposive construction aligns procedure with common sense and fairness: plaintiffs should not be forced to draft speculative replications in response to written statements that may never enter the record. At the same time, defendants are nudged to regularize their pleadings swiftly, or else the replication clock remains in abeyance.

By harmonizing earlier strands of authority—SNS Products, Aroti Sarkar and others—while distinguishing the “hard stop” jurisprudence (Ram Swarup Lugani, Popular Construction), the decision strikes the correct balance between procedural certainty and substantive justice. It will guide litigants, counsel, and the Registry in computing replication timelines with clarity and consistency in the Delhi High Court.