The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the rights conferred upon the parties under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Civil Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT :

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral):—

CM APPL. 18655/2023 (Exemption)

1. This is an application seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures/documents.

2. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3. The application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 611/2023 & CM APPL. 18912/2023 (Stay)

4. The petitioner challenges the order dated 13.02.2023. passed in CS (Comm) No. 554/2022 titled Anil Kumar Singh v. Nayak Sanitation Private Limited, whereby the application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant was dismissed.

5. Mr. Sameer Dewan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submits that though the learned Trial Court has correctly held that the summons were sought to be served upon the petitioner on 21.11.2022., which was refused by the employee of the petitioner, the refusal will be taken as service.

6. Learned counsel further submits that at the time of engagement of the counsel, the party had informed that the next date of hearing was 10.01.2023., however, which was entered in his diary as 11.01.2023. erroneously. Learned counsel however submits that when the counsel checked up the status of case on the evening of 10.01.2023., he found that the matter was already listed and petitioner proceeded exparte.

7. Learned counsel submits that an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC seeking setting aside of the ex parte proceedings was sought to be filed immediately on 11.01.2023., however, the filing procedure being by way of e-portal, learned counsel had to first serve advance copy to the respondent and thereafter alone it could be accepted through the e-portal.

8. Learned counsel submits that the finally the application was served upon the respondent on 11.01.2023. and brought on record of the learned Trial Court on 13.01.2023. Learned counsel submits that these facts were mentioned in the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, however, were not considered by the learned Trial Court.

9. Learned counsel submits that the order dated 10.01.2023., whereby the petitioner was proceeded ex parte had also a drastic effect to the extent that the learned Trial Court had also closed the right to file the written statement simultaneously.

10. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order as well as the order dated 10.01.2023. now precludes the petitioner from raising his defence before the learned Trial Court and therefore, this Court ought to interfere under the Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

11. Per Contra, Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff invites attention of this Court to page 32 of the impugned order to submit that the learned Trial Court had considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner in detail and after appreciating the conduct of the party and the manner in which the party had not taken action even after having been served, the learned Trial Court was constrained, in such circumstances, to pass the order dated 10.01.2023. and there was no legal impediment in dismissing the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC filed on behalf of the petitioner.

12. Learned counsel submits that this suit is filed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and therefore the timelines are strictly to be adhered to. On that basis, learned counsel submits that the impugned order is sustainable in law and does not warrant any interference at all.

13. This Court has considered the rival submissions, the impugned order dated 13.02.2023. as also the order dated 10.01.2023. when the learned Trial Court proceeded the petitioner/defendant ex parte as also closed the right to file the written statement.

14. At the outset it has to be mentioned that this suit has been filed under Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and yet the fact still remains that the procedures are handmaid of justice and wherever the party has been precluded from exercising its rights to file its defe