The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and providing a fair opportunity for the defendants to present their defense.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--This appeal is directed against order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the Learned District Judge (Commercial Court-02) South District, Saket, New Delhi.

2. The principal grievance of the appellants i.e., the original defendants, before us, is that their defence was struck off via order dated 10.07.2019, and the review application filed thereafter was also rejected via the impugned order i.e., order dated 19.02.2021.

3. A perusal of the order dated 10.07.2019 shows that the Learned District Judge treated the suit action filed by the respondent as a commercial suit action, under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

4. The record shows that the appellants/defendants were served in the suit action, which was concededly filed as an ordinary suit, on 01.02.2019.

5. It is also not in dispute that the time for filing written statement was accorded to the appellants/defendants on 20.03.2019. 5.1 The appellants/defendants, as is evident from the record, filed the written statement on 10.07.2019.

6. The Learned District Judge via order dated 10.07.2019, directed that the written statement filed by the appellants/defendants should be taken off the record. The reasoning furnished by the Learned District Judge, in that behalf, is contained in the following part of the order dated 10.07.2019:

"The defendants in the present case were served on 01.02.2019. Another Counsel appeared for the defendants on 20.03.2019 and sought time to file Written Statement on the ground of her in-health. The defendants were directed to file Written Statement within a week with copy to the other side. However, Written Statement has been filed only today. No application has been filed for seeking condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement. The present suit involves commercial dispute. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 clearly provides that in commercial suits, the defendants are obliged to file the Written Statement within maximum 120 days. On expiry of 120 days from date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file Written Statement and court shall not allow the Written Statement to be taken on record. The present Written Statement has been filed beyond the period of 120 days and, therefore, cannot be taken on record. The defence of the defendants is ordered to be struck of."

7. As indicated above, the review application against the aforesaid order was filed by the appellants/defendants, albeit, with a delay of 44 days.

7.1. The review application came to be dismissed via the impugned order.

8. A perusal of the order dated 10.07.2019 shows that the Learned District Judge, while noticing the fact that the written statement filed on 10.07.2019 was not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, proceeded to direct the removal of the written statement, on the ground that the suit action instituted by the respondent was a commercial action.

8.1. It is based on this understanding that the Learned District Judge concluded that after the expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons, the appellants/defendants had forfeited the right to file a written statement.

9. Mr Kunal Kalra, who appears on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, fairly concedes that the suit action was filed by the respondent/plaintiff as an ordinary suit.

9.1. Mr. Kalra says that this step was taken, as, at the relevant time, this High Court had not issued the necessary notification for constituting a Commercial Court in the concerned district.

9.2. This aspect of the matter has been noticed by the Learned District Judge in the impugned order i.e., order dated 19.02.2021. The relevant observations made by the Learned District Judge, in this behalf, are as follows:

"It is further submitted that the present suit has been filed on 12th September, 2018 and at that point of time, Commercial Courts provisions were not applicable in District Court. It is further