JUDGMENT :

Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter be referred to as the “Act”) against the summary judgment and decree dated 29.06.2021 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Surat (hereinafter be referred to as the “Trial Court”) in Commercial Suit No.116 of 2019 whereby the Trial Court has partly allowed the suit and ordered to recover Rs.1,50,01,554.24 from the defendants – appellants herein jointly and severally from the person and property along with running interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the amount.

2. The facts of the present appeal are that the appellant no.1 is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and engaged in business of purchase and sale of the diamonds in the name and style of M/s Shree Lalji Impex since 2006. It is the case of the appellants that they have been doing the business with the respondent for buying and selling of rough diamonds for more than 12 years. That the appellants have purchased diverse quantities of rough diamonds from respondent worth Rs.2,23,645/- USD (Rs.1,50,01,554.24) through various invoices upon 120 days of credit limit from the date of the respective invoice which the appellants have failed to repay the aforesaid amount. It is further the case of the appellants that after issuance of summons on the appellants, they had filed written statement at Exhibit 9 raising the issue of suppression of material facts and filed another application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the jurisdiction of the Court. Upon the application preferred by the respondent under Order XIII-A, the Trial Court passed the summary judgment and allowed the aforesaid suit of the appellants without recording the oral evidence.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned summary judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal on various grounds enumerated in the memo of appeal.

4. Heard Mr. Kunal Desai, learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr. Parth Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the respondents.

5. Mr. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the Trial Court has not considered the pleadings in its true and proper perspective. He has submitted that the Trial Court has misread and misconstrued the provisions of Order XIII-A of the Civil Procedure Code, while prescribing the grounds for summary judgment against the appellants – original defendants. It is submitted by the learned advocate that the Trial Court has observed that the appellants have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and failed to consider other compelling reason and passed summary judgment without recording of the oral evidence, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. He has also submitted that the Trial Court has not followed the provisions of the Act more particularly in case management hearing under Exhibit 18 to the effect that the appellants failed to produce statement of truth in accordance with the provisions of Order VIII Rule 3, which is required to put on record, however, without any due diligence on the part of the learned advocate appearing for the party, the said documentary evidence did not produce before the Trial Court and in absence of the documentary evidence, the impugned judgment was passed by the Trial Court. He has submitted that there is an ample materials and documentary evidence available on record and even with the appellants which did not produce before the Court. He has submitted that as the appellants have made part payment of total outstanding amount and furnished security in a nature that the polished diamonds worth Rs.3,05,12,350/- through the third party agent namely Shri Paresh Chimediya, the Trial Court has committed an error in no