The court denied condonation of a 721-day delay in appeal filing due to lack of sufficient cause and negligence in prosecution, emphasizing that such delays in commercial matters require strict adherence to timelines.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellants-defendant Nos.1 to 3 under Section 13 (1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Order XLI Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC'), challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2022 passed in Com.O.S.No.26084/2017 by the LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court').

2. The respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,72,58,080/- against the respondents with an interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of suit till realization of the amount with costs. In the said suit, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 failed to file a written statement refuting any claim made by the plaintiff. The Trial Court, on consideration of the case, in view of the absence of the written statement and also on an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XIII-A, proceeded to pass a summary judgment allowing the suit and directing the appellants-defendant Nos.1 to 3 to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.2,72,58,080/- with the interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from date of suit till realization. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed along with an application in I.A.No.1/2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 721 days in filing the appeal.

3. Sri.D.Aswathappa, learned counsel appearing for Sri.M.Subramani, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have filed an affidavit accompanying the application for condonation of delay and also additional affidavits explaining the cause for the delay. It is submitted that the impugned judgment is passed on 10.01.2022 and only after receipt of the execution notice, the appellants entered appearance in the execution proceedings and filed vakalath on 16.12.2023 and thereafter, filed an appeal. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had excluded the period of limitation during the Covid-19 pandemic from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 and hence, the said period is required to be excluded while computing the period of limitation. It is also submitted that the appellant No.2 underwent surgery and he was admitted to the hospital on 12.08.2022 and discharged on 13.08.2022. Similarly, the appellant No.3 had undergone medical treatment on different dates and also underwent surgery which has been explained in the affidavits filed by both the appellants. Hence, the delay is required to be condoned by considering the cause shown in the affidavits. It is contended that the appellants have deposited the principal amount before the Trial Court and the matter is required to be remanded back to the Trial Court as the Trial Court, without considering the scope of Order XIII-A Rule 3 of the CPC, has proceeded to accept the plaint version and decreed the suit, which is impermissible. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.N.RAMAPPA GOWDA Vs. C.C.CHANDRE GOWDA (DEAD) BY LRS AND ANOTHER, (2012) 5 SCC 265 and the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. Vs. M.J. BIZCRAFT LLP AND ANR. , (2017) SCC Online Delhi 6394. He further contended that one opportunity is required to be given to the appellants to place their defense before the Trial Court as they have a good case on merits. Therefore, he seeks to condone the delay and consider the appeal on merits.

4. Per contra, Sri.Lakshay Agarwal appearing for Sri.Roshan Jacob, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the appellants have filed vakalath bef