IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of compliance with mandatory provisions under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in the context of condonation of delay in filing the written statement.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 63538/2023 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 2021/2023 & CM APPL. 63539/2023

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Ld. Sh. Sanjay Sharma-II, DJ (Commercial-11) Central, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in CS (Comm) No. 2361 of 2022 titled as `M/S Bimal Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Jayco Sales', whereby, the application under Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of one (1) day in filing the written statement, filed by the Respondent herein, was allowed.

1.1. The Petitioner herein is the original Plaintiff and the Respondent herein is the original Defendant in the said Commercial Suit pending adjudication before the Trial Court.

1.2. The said Commercial Suit had been filed seeking recovery of Rs.8,65,040/- against the Respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Trial Court has condoned the delay in filing the written statement by the Respondent; however, the Trial Court has failed to adjudicate upon the following specific objections raised by the Petitioner before the Trial Court:

i. The written statement is not accompanied with the mandatory Statement of Truth;

ii. That each page of the written statement is not signed as mandated under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which are applicable to the commercial suits;

iii. The mandatory admission/denial of documents has not been filed along with the written statement; and

3. He states that the adjudication of the said objections was necessary as in the absence of the conformity of the provisions applicable under CPC as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the written statement could not be taken on record. He states that these deficiencies will prejudice the progress of trial, as trial proceedings will remain embroiled in these deficiencies being cured.

3.1. He states that these objections are evident ex-facie on the record.

4. None appears for the Respondents despite advance service.

5. This Court has perused the impugned order dated 23.11.2023 passed in the said Commercial Suit and finds that there is no adjudication by the Trial Court on the objections raised by the Petitioner. This Court finds merit in the submission of the Petitioner that in the absence of compliance with the mandatory provisions, the written statement shall be defective and this will prolong the trial.

6. In the facts of this case, the Petitioner is directed to file an appropriate application before the Trial Court on or before 20.12.2023 enlisting the deficiencies in the written statement, so as to enable the Trial Court to return its findings. The Petitioner shall enclose this order with the said application.

7. The learned Trial Court is requested to adjudicate on the aforesaid specific objections raised by the Petitioner in accordance with law.

8. Until the decision in that application, the order dated 23.11.2023 is kept in abeyance and it shall remain subject to the final order passed in the proposed application. The order dated 23.11.2023 will merge with the final order passed on the proposed application.

9. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of along with the pending applications.

10. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.