ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been brought being aggrieved by the order dated 22.06.2021 passed in Civil Suit No.01-B/2021, by the Criminal Court District-Raipur, C.G., by which the opportunity of the petitioner/defendants for filing written statement was closed.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has filed a Civil Suit in No.01-B/2021 before the Criminal Court Raipur, C.G.. The petitioner/defendant received the summons on 6th January, 2021. The time for filing written statement was extended for 120 days which got expired on 06.05.2021. The case was listed on 15.04.2021 and on that date the case was fixed for arguments on the application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. and application under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., on 22.06.2021. No last opportunity was given by the Commercial Court to the petitioner for filing of written statement and on 06.05.2021, the Court was closed due to the imposition of lock-down in corona pandemic control measure.

3. In the impugned order, the learned Commercial Court has held that according to the proviso under Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. incorporated in Commercial Courts Act, after the expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons, the right of defendants to file written statement stands forfeited and therefore, the opportunity of filing written statement by the petitioner was closed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that on 22.06.2021, the petitioner filed application seeking time to file written statement on the medical ground as the learned counsel for the petitioner was in quarantine. The learned trial Court has not given any consideration on this prayer of the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in Suo-moto Writ (Civil) No.-03 of 2020 has ordered that while computing the period of limitation prescribed in general law and special Acts, the period between 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. On 27.04.2021, the suspension of limitation under general or special laws was further extended and the matter was listed for 19.07.2021. Hence, on the basis of this order of the Supreme Court, the limitation that has been counted without taking into consideration of the period of lock-down, is erroneous.

4. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Group Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aaditiya J. Garg and Anr. reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 1050 and the judgment of Supreme Court in Kailash Vs. Nanhku & Ors. reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480. It is submitted that in the case of S.C.G. Contracts (India) Private Limited Vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited & Ors. reported in (2019) 12 SCC 210. The Supreme Court granted liberty to the defendant and ordered that the written statement that was already produced to be taken on record. Therefore, it is prayed that this petition may be admitted and petitioner may be granted opportunity to file written statement in the Civil Suit before the Commercial Court.

5. Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for the respondent has appeared on caveat and he opposes the petition and the submissions made in that respect and submits that the present petition under Article 227 Constitution of India is not maintainable. Section 13(1)(A) of Commercial Courts Act Specifically provides that “Any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court at the level of District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction or, as the case may be, Commercial Division of a High Court may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of that High Court.” Therefore, the impugned order is appealable. Hence, in such a case, the appeal shall be maintainable against the impugned order, under Order 43 of C.P.C. and the same shall be heard by a Commercial Appellate Division Bench of the High Court. Therefore, there is no provision for hearing of such cases by a Single Judge. The amended provision of the C.P