IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established is the necessity for courts to consider the impact of extraordinary circumstances, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and relevant procedural provisions before dismissing applications for condonation of delay.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the Order dated 29.11.2021, passed by the learned District Judge, Commercial Court, Rohini, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as `learned Trial Court') in CS(COMM) 190 of 2019 titled as "M/s Ashwmegh Spices Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s Sana Food Products" (hereinafter "Impugned Order") whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter "CPC") seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement was dismissed. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court, which is pending adjudication.

2. The petitioner no.1 is a partnership firm dealing in the business of food products such as Namkeen etc. The petitioners no.2 & 3 are partners in the petitioner no.1 firm. The respondent on the other hand deals in various spices.

3. The petitioners herein approached the respondent in the year 2017 at the office of the respondent company and expressed their interest in supplying goods to the respondent for consideration on various occasions. Subsequently, both the parties commenced business. It is pertinent to note that there was no written agreement between the parties and goods were supplied on an advance payment made by the petitioners. The respondent would dispatch the goods only upon receival of the advance payment of the petitioner.

4. The relationship between the parties became bitter when the petitioner complained to the respondent regarding the quality of items received by the petitioners, in lieu of invoice no. 435 dated 26.09.2017. The petitioner had informed the respondent regarding complaints received from its clients regarding the quality of the product. Thereafter, the respondent replaced the defected items as per invoice dated 26.09.2017 and raised another invoice bearing no. 612 dated 09.11.2017 amounting to Rs. 1,53,400/-. It is stated that the respondent ensured the petitioners that he would deduct the bill amount from the amount already paid by the petitioners.

5. The respondent did not adjust the amount as per invoice no. 612 towards the amount already paid by the petitioner despite repeated requests. However, the respondent proceeded to file a commercial suit under Commercial Court Act, 2015 (hereinafter "the Act") for the recovery of Rs. 8,85,760/- along with the interest rate of 18% per annum bearing CS(COMM) 190 of 2019.

6. That on 21.11.2019, the counsel for the petitioner appeared before the learned Trial Court and sought time to file his Vakalatnama as well as written statement. On the same day, the petitioner made a request before the court, requesting a legible copy of the suit as the copy received by the petitioner along with the annexures was illegible. The learned counsel for the petitioners approached the counsel for the respondent to collect legible copies but to no avail. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for a certified copy of the suit, which was received by him on 09.12.2019.

7. It is further stated that the expiry period of 30 days from 09.12.2019 would be on 08.01.2020. However, due to the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioners could not file the written statement within the stipulated period of time. On 15.10.2020, the petitioners filed their written statement along with an application for condonation of delay, which was dismissed, thus, the petitioners have approached this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is erroneous as the learned Trial Court failed to consider that the delay was not intentional but caused due to the lockdown in the country and non-functioning of the courts on account of Covid pandemic.

9. It is submitted that the period of 120 days as granted under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC expired on 05.04.2020, the time during which courts were not functioning and the Order of the Supreme