The court emphasized the importance of raising relevant issues in a timely manner and the need for parties to act diligently in pursuing their claims or defenses.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - The defendant has applied for review of the judgement and decree dated January 16, 2020 passed in GA No. 2598 of 2019 CS No. 254 of 2019.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant has submitted that, the judgement and decree dated January 16, 2020 has to be reviewed on the grounds as canvassed by the defendant. He has submitted that, the plaintiff served two copies of the paint of the suit on the defendant. According to him, the first copy of the print was annexed to the petition under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The second copy of the plaint was handed over by the advocate of the plaintiff to the advocate of the defendant on January 16, 2020. He has referred to and relied upon the judgement and decree dated January 16, 2020 in support of the contention that, a copy of the print was served upon the defendant in Court on January 16, 2020.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 23 of the plaint as appearing in the petition for judgement on admission. He is submitted that, on the basis of the pleading as appearing therein, the learned Master had granted leave under Section 12 A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 on November 28, 2019. According to him, the learned Master had permitted amendment of the plaint on January 19, 2020 without a formal application being made in that regard. Paragraph 23 of the plaint had been allowed by the learned Master to be amended. A new sentence had been incorporated in paragraph 23 of the plaint. He has submitted that, the learned Master had allowed other amendments to be incorporated in the plaint which he had no power to do.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant has submitted that, the defendant was not aware of leave under Section 12 A of the Act of 2015 being granted by the learned Master. The defendant came to know of the same during the settlement/drawing up and completing of the order dated January 16, 2020 in the month of February 2020.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant has submitted that, the plaint does not contain any prayer seeking leave under Section 12 A of the Act of 2015 to institute the suit. According to him, in absence of such prayer, no leave could have been granted. He has referred to the commercial Courts (Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement) rules, 2020 as has been published in the Gazette on July 3, 2018. He is submitted that, the government and the plaint that requirement under Section 12 A of the act of 2015 may be dispensed with as there is no mechanism for pre-institution mediation in place, is incorrect.

6. Learned Senior advocate appearing for the defendant has submitted that, the defendant came to learn for the first time on January 19, 2020 that the learned Master had granted leave under Section 12 A of the Act of 2015 on November 28, 2019. He has submitted that the plaintiff did not apply for leave to amend the plaint. According to him, learned Master has no power under the Original Side Rules to exercise jurisdiction under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or permit amendment of the plaint after the presentation thereof. He has submitted that, the learned Master had allowed amendment of the plaint on the pretext of correcting typographical errors. He has referred to the concise statement, paragraphs 6, 12, 14, 15, 18, 23, and 26 of the plaint. He has referred to the verification portion of the plaint along with the list of documents. He has submitted that the learned Master allowed amendments in such portions of the plaint without a formal application being taken out.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant has referred to Section 12A of the Act of 2015. He has submitted that, the provisions of Section 12A are mandatory. In support of such contention, he has relied upon a decision of the Madras High Court dated February 12, 2020 rendered in Civil Miscellaneo