The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to the timeline for various stages in a commercial suit and the curbing of the Court's discretion to extend the time for filing the written statement beyond 120 days.

IA No. 4896/2016

1. This is an application for recall of the order dated 19th April, 2016 passed by the Court whereby it was noted that the statutory period for filing the written statement by Defendant No. 1 had expired in terms of proviso to Order V Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as amended by the Schedule to the Commercial Courts and Commercial Appellate Divisions of the High Courts Act 2015 ('the Commercial Courts Act').

2. It is stated in the application by Defendant No.1 that the present suit was filed on 6th November, 2015 and came up for hearing on 16th November, 2015 on which date the Court issued summons in the suit and notice on the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC (IA No. 23637/2015) to the Defendants.

3. According to Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Defendant No. 1, when the suit was filed on 6th November, 2015 the Commercial Division of this Court had not been notified. She further submits that the suit, in fact, continues to be numbered as a civil suit and not a commercial suit. She submits that in terms of Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, since this was a suit that was transferred to the Commercial Division from 15th November 2015 onwards, the proviso to Order V Rule 1 of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act would not apply and the Court has still the discretion to extend the time period prescribed within which the written statement can be filed. She referred to an order dated 9th December, 2016 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in IA No. 25029/2015 in CS (OS) No. 764/2015 (Telefonaktiebolaget L.M Ericsson v. Lava International Limited).

4. Ms. Singh states that the summons in the suit and notice in the application for interim injunction was actually served on Defendant No. 1 on 19th December, 2015. Since it was a holiday for Defendant No. 1 summons and notice was received only at the gate and the officers got to know about the service of summons and notice only on 21st December, 2015 after coming to the office. Since the issue was technical in nature, the written statement took some time to draft. It is stated that although the period of 120 days expired on 18th April, 2016, Defendant No. 1 was under the impression that it was not a commercial dispute but only an ordinary suit. It chose to file an application under Order VII Rules 10 & 11 of the CPC (IA No. 550/2016) and proceeded on the basis that till such time the said application was not decided, the written statement need not be filed. In support of the last submission, Ms. Singh placed reliance on the decision in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 and R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu, AIR 2016 SC 3282.

5. Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff, on the other hand, refers to the fact that the Commercial Courts Act was preceded by an Ordinance, which came into effect on 23rd October, 2015 and since the Ordinance was replaced by the Commercial Courts Act, that was the effective date of the Act coming into operation. The treating of the present suit as a commercial dispute did not have to await the formal numbering of the suit as a commercial suit which was only as per internal instructions of the High Court on the administrative side. He points out that on the date when the suit was filed i.e., 6th November, 2015, the Commercial Courts Act having come into force, this suit was a commercial suit. Secondly, there was no question of transfer of this suit to the Commercial Division under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act. It is submitted that in terms of the amendment of the CPC brought about by the Commercial Courts Act, a written statement has to be filed within 30 days of the service of summons. That clearly expired on 18th March, 2016. In terms of the amended proviso to Order V Rule 1 CPC, an application had to be filed seeking extension of time beyond 30 days for filing the written statement. Even th