In commercial suits, a written statement filed beyond 30 days without a condonation application may not be accepted, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural timelines.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 11th October, 2021 passed by the Commercial Court South East, Saket Court, Delhi in CS(Comm.) No. 219/2019, whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner (hereinafter defendant) under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (CPC), 1908, seeking to file statement of truth in support of written statement, has been dismissed and the written statement filed by the defendant has been taken off the record.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:

2.1 The respondent (hereinafter plaintiff) is in the business of supplying printing plates and chemicals.

2.2 The plaintiff had supplied materials to the defendant to the tune of Rs. 2,56,61,744/- against which a part payment of Rs. 2,44,76,921/- was made by the defendant and an outstanding amount of Rs. 11,84,823/- was due to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.

2.3 The defendant issued 2 cheques dated 8th August 2018 and 1st September, 2018 in the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 84,249/- respectively in favour of the plaintiff.

2.4 The aforesaid cheques when presented to the bank by the plaintiff, were dishonoured with remarks "stop payment" and "accounts closed".

2.5 On 5th August 2019, commercial suit for recovery of Rs. 11,84,823/- along with interest pendente lite and future interests was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.

2.6 Summons were issued and were served upon the defendant on 11th September, 2019.

2.7 The defendant filed written statement on 23rd November, 2019, beyond the period of thirty days from the service of the summons.

2.8 The written statement filed on behalf of the defendant was objected by the plaintiff on the ground that the same is not accompanied with an application under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC seeking condonation of delay and was filed without statement of truth.

2.9 The Commercial Court vide order dated 23rd November, 2019, granted two weeks' time to the defendant to file appropriate applications along with supporting documents in accordance with the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and a cost of Rs. 2,000/- was also imposed on the defendant for the discrepancies in the written statement on account of which pleadings could not be completed.

2.10 The defendant filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC on 24th September, 2021 seeking to file statement of truth in support of the written statement.

3. The Commercial Court vide the impugned order dismissed the aforesaid application filed on behalf of the defendant by holding/observing:

(i) The defendant upon request was granted two weeks' time to rectify the deficiency in filing the written statement. The said deficiency has not been rectified within the period allowed by the Commercial Court.

(ii) Till date application under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement has not been filed despite permission given by the Commercial Court on 23rd November, 2019 to file the same within two weeks;

(iii) In terms of the judgment of this Court in Ok Play India Pvt. Ltd. vs. A P Distributors and Anr. 2021, SCC OnLine Del 4043, written statement which is filed beyond the period of 30 days in a commercial suit, can only be taken on record, if it is accompanied by an application under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC for condonation of delay within the maximum permissible period of 120 days.

4. The counsel for the defendant contends that, there is no requirement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC of filing an application for condonation of delay. He further states that technicalities should not come in the way of substantial justice and accordingly, he may be allowed to put his defence on merits.

5. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the defendant on the following judgments:

(i) Ganesh Trading Co. vs. Moji Ram, (1978) 2 SCC 91;

(ii) Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs.