JUDGMENT :

Tushar Rao Gedela, J.

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. Petitioner challenges the order dated 20.07.2022, whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the condonation of delay application seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement on record. To be noted, the impugned order arises from a Commercial Suit pending before the learned Trial Court.

2. Mr. Rishi Sood, learned counsel appears for the petitioner and submits that the summon of the suit was received by the petitioner on 10.03.2022. The next date of hearing as per the summons was 27.04.2022. On 27.04.2022, the learned Presiding Officer (‘PO’) of the learned Trial Court was on leave and, therefore, no proceedings were undertaken on that date.

3. Learned counsel submits that an SMS requesting complete copy of the suit be supplied to the counsel for the petitioner was sent to the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff disputes this aspect.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 16.05.2022, an email was sent to the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff seeking clear copies of the suit as well as the documents annexed thereto.

6. On 17.05.2022, by way of three separate emails, the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff had sent the clear copies of the suit as well as the documents to the counsel for the petitioner.

7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the written statement thereafter was supplied to the counsel for the respondent on 19.07.2022 and finally the written statement was filed before the learned Trial Court on 20.07.2022.

8. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner/defendant had suffered from COVID-19 during the month of June 2022, particularly, from 15.06.2022 to 25.06.2022 and on that account too the filing of the written statement was delayed.

9. Learned counsel submits that without considering the aforesaid facts, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order.

10. Per contra, Mr. Deep Dhamija, learned counsel for the respondent refuted the facts as narrated above and submits that he never received the SMS stated to have been sent on 27.04.2022 to him. Therefore, the question of reckoning the date of 27.04.2022 to be attributable as failure of the plaintiff to supply fresh copies of the plaint along with the documents, cannot be placed upon the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

11. Mr. Dhamija further submits that though on 16.05.2022 an email, as stated above, was received by his office, however, without wasting any time immediately on 17.05.2022, the entire paper book of the suit along with the annexures was sent by way of three separate emails since the documents were bulky and ambiguous.

12. Mr. Dhamija submits that irrespective of the aforesaid, the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order had noted that there is no explanation provided by the petitioner for non-filing of the written statement as well as of no demand having been raised or an objection to not having received the clear copies of either the suit or the documents annexed thereto, from 10.03.2022 through till 16.05.2022.

13. He further submits that even if this Court would consider the receipt of the complete copies on 17.05.2022, nothing precluded the petitioner from filing the written statement within the stipulated period of 120 days, which has to be reckoned from 10.03.2022.

14. Mr. Dhamija further submits that in view of the aforesaid facts, there is no requirement for this Court to interfere with the impugned order and seeks dismissal of the petition with heavy costs.

15. This Court has considered the arguments addressed by learned counsels for the parties, and has also examined the documents placed on record.

16. The petitioner claims that the counsel for the petitioner had sent an SMS on 27.04.2022 for which there was no response from the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

17. Be that as it may, the email which was sent on 16.05.2022 on behalf of the petitione