The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with the procedural requirements under the Commercial Courts Act and the preservation of the defendant's right to present a defense in commercial suits under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed these applications for review of two orders both dated 1st February, 2019 on the ground that the dispute is a commercial dispute within the meaning of The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (the Commercial Courts Act). The case of the plaintiff is that the matters were decided on the basis that the suit was a regular suit.

2. The orders dated 1st February, 2019 had allowed the applications filed by the defendant nos.3 and 4 for extension of time to file their respective written statements upon payment of costs. The appeals filed by the plaintiff from the said orders, were dismissed as not maintainable since the Appeal Court was of the view that the dispute forming the basis of the suit is a commercial dispute within the meaning of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

3. To understand the issue as stated above, the facts leading to the two review applications are briefly stated.-

(i) The plaintiff (the petitioner herein) filed a Civil Suit in 2015 for recovery of money claiming a decree against the defendant nos. 1 to 8 in the suit together with an enquiry for damages. The defendant nos. 3 and 4 filed an application in 2016 for dismissal of the suit and by an order dated 7th June, 2016 the suit was directed not to be transferred to the undefended list. The plaintiff applied for judgment on admission and by an order dated 26th July, 2016 the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. An appeal preferred from the decree by the defendant nos. 3 and 4 was allowed on 22nd August, 2017 and the suit was directed to be placed before an appropriate Bench for disposal.

(ii) Two applications for extension of time to file the written statement were made by the defendant nos. 3 and 4 in January 2018. In the said applications, the defendants prayed for filing of written statements to contest the suit on merits.

(iii) The plaintiff opposed the said applications relying on the addition of two further provisos to The Calcutta Amendment to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C) for extending the time beyond ninety days and the further extension of 120 days subject to conditions specified which a defendant has to prove to the satisfaction of the court.

(iv) Arguments were made by counsel for the plaintiff and defendants on the basis that the suit was a Regular Suit.

(v) By the orders dated 1st February, 2019 (under review in these applications) this court allowed the applications filed by the defendant nos. 3 and 4 for filing their respective written statements upon payment of costs. In coming to the decision, the court construed the two added provisos to the Calcutta Amendment to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC.

(vi) The appeals filed by the plaintiff from the orders dated 1st February, 2019, were dismissed with the following observation:-

"The Court : The appeal arises out of an order extending the time to file the written statement in a suit where the dispute is a commercial dispute within the meaning of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Since the present appeal does not lie under such Act, APO No. 37 of 2019 along with G.A. No. 457 of 2019 are dismissed as not maintainable.

There will be no order as to costs."

(vii) The applications for review of the orders dated 1st February, 2019 were filed by the plaintiff on 11th March, 2019 on the ground that the decision of the Appeal Court held that the suit is a commercial suit and the Special Amendment to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC pertaining to filing of written statements should have hence been taken into account by this court.

4. Mr. S.P. Sarkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants / plaintiff relies on the dispute between the parities which, according to counsel, is a joint venture agreement under the definition of "a commercial dispute" as defined under Section 2 (c) (xi) of The Commercial Courts Act, by reason of taking ov