Proper filing of written statements within the stipulated period under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the interpretation of e-filing procedures as prescribed by the court.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. Petitioner challenges the order dated 08.02.2023 in CS (COMM) No. 465/22 titled as "Pneumo Care Health Pvt. Ltd. vs. Unic Healthcare", whereby the learned Trial Court has foreclosed the right of the petitioners/defendants to file their written statements on the ground that the same was filed beyond 120 days, as stipulated under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

2. As per the submissions of Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the written statement was filed through an email addressed to the concerned court on 24.12.2022 at 08:00 pm in the evening. On that basis, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel submits that the written statements were filed within 120 day period, as stipulated by the Code.

3. Learned counsel submits that even otherwise, the time would have expired only on 02.01.2023 and, if reckoned from 24.12.2022 at 08:00 pm, such filing ought to have been considered as if filed on 02.01.2023. Reckoned in such manner, even otherwise the filing of the written statement would have been within the stipulated period and, therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside.

4. Mr. Arpit Bhargava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the said submission on the ground that as on 24.12.2022, the filing was either by hard copies physically or at best could have been done via the official e-filing portal of the District Courts and not otherwise.

5. Learned counsel submits that the facility of e-filing directly to the concerned court was provided only during the COVID period, keeping in view the accentuating circumstances that had occurred on account of COVID-19 pandemic and not otherwise.

6. Learned counsel submits that the e-filing done directly to the concerned court cannot be considered as proper and valid filing.

7. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to page 68 of the present petition which is the email received by the petitioner from the Court Officer of the learned Trial Court where the written statement along with the application seeking condonation of delay was filed through the official email of the Court, rather than through the official email website of the learned Trial Court.

8. According to Mr. Sharma, the Court Officer, via the return email, directed that the hard copy of the written statement and the other pleadings and documents be filed in Court on or before the next date of hearing. Learned counsel submits that the next date of hearing was 16.01.2023 before which date, the hard copies were indeed filed.

9. Mr. Sharma on the basis of factual narration submits that the written statement having been originally filed by sending the same through email on 24.12.2022, coupled with the return email dated 02.01.2023, of the court officer of the learned Trial Court, may be considered as the written statement being filed within the stipulated extended period of time but within the 120 days period as stipulated under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

10. Per contra, Mr. Bhargava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent also hands over the bench the notification dated 28.02.2023 issued by this Court whereby an elaborate mechanism for the purpose of e-filing of the suit and applications related to the commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 were notified and sent to all the District Courts at Delhi for implementation.

11. Learned counsel, in particular, draws attention of this Court to the meaning ascribed electronic filing (e-filing) at clause 2.7 of such notification which reads as under:

"Electronic Filing (e-filing): means e-filing as prescribed through the Internet (at the web portal of the Court) and through the internet/intranet at Designated Counters, unless the context requires otherwise."

12. He also relies on clause 2.18 which is the meaning ascribed to "st