Cases should be considered and disposed of on merits rather than technicalities.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.10.2022 in CS (COMM) 317/22 titled as "Guriqbal Singh vs. M/S M N Automobile Private Limited & Ors." whereby the learned Trial Court on the failure of the petitioner/defendant to file the written statement had closed the right to file the same.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that the petitioner was served on 29.06.2022 by summons of the suit, though in the impugned order, the learned Trial Court had noted that the petitioner was served on 15.06.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the order dated 13.07.2022, it is clearly observed by the learned Trial Court that defendant No.1 was served on 29.06.2022, though the impugned order notes the date of service as 15.06.2022. In any case, learned counsel submits that whether the time period to file the written statement is reckoned with effect from 15.06.2022 or 29.06.2022, filing of the written statement on 06.10.2022 through email was within that stipulated period of 120 days, as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the Commerical Court Act, 2015.

4. For the intervening period of the delay in filing the written statement, learned counsel submits that vide the application under Order VIII Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of the CPC, 1908, detailed reasons were given apart from the fact that the counsel had categorically mentioned in paragraph 5 of the said application that someone in the family of the counsel for the petitioner/defendant was tested positive for COVID-19.

5. Learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order had not considered the medical documents placed on record. In any case, learned counsel submits that the period of 120 days had not elapsed even by 06.10.2022.

6. Learned counsel submits that the delay which has occurred is 67 days over and above the 30 days period, as stipulated and could have been condoned.

7. Learned counsel submits that the procedures, even though a part of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are still the handmaid of justice.

8. Mr. Varun S. Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the aforesaid submissions and submits that the learned Trial Court has passed a correct order in view of the facts that had arisen in the present case and prays that the present petition be dismissed with costs.

9. After having considered the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that so far as the Commercial Court Act, 2015 is concerned, there cannot be any doubt that the timelines, as stipulated, are to be observed strictly.

10. The rigors of the Commercial Courts Act have been already settled by the Supreme Court in SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Ltd. And Ors., reported in (2019) 12 SC 210. However, this Court has considered the delay which has occurred of about 67 days reckoned from 29.06.2022 and is of the considered opinion that the said delay will not come in the way of the petitioner from entitling it to file its written statement. In any case, the settled law of the land is that the cases ought to be considered and disposed of on merits rather than technicalities.

11. Having regard to the fact that though the written statement was filed beyond 30 days period, as stipulated, however, has been filed within the 90 days extended period, as stipulated in Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908, the written statement could and ought to have been taken on record.

12. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court is directed to take the written statement along with the affidavit of admission and denial filed on behalf of petitioner on record and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

13. The petition along with pending application is disposed of with no order as to costs.