The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to time limits for filing written statements in commercial suits as mandated by the Commercial Court Act and the amendments to the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

JUDGMENT :

J.C. Doshi, J.

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned advocates appearing for both the sides, this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is taken up for hearing today.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged common order passed below Exhs.15 and 17 in Commercial Civil Suit No.1561 of 2021, whereunder, learned City Civil Court No.8, Ahmedabad sitting in a jurisdiction of commercial Court under the Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (in short “Commercial Court Act”) declined to extend the time period of filing the written statement.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is doing the business of manufacturing digital screen matching system etc. Perusing its quotation, the respondent got ready to buy said machine from the petitioner for Rs.18,66,365/-. As a token, Rs.2,01,000/- was paid and thenafter, in intervals, total Rs.10,12,000/- was paid, whereas Rs.8,54,375/- is still to be paid on the ground that the machine purchased by the respondent from the petitioner was not working properly. Thereafter, without the consent of the petitioner, the respondent sold the machine to other unknown party for Rs.4,25,000/-. Therefore, the respondent had filed captioned commercial suit for recovery of Rs.10,12,000/- with interest. Thereafter, summons was duly served to the petitioner and vide Exh.15, he had put his appearance and preferred an application Exh.17. The advocate for the petitioner appeared on 25.10.2019 and sought time for filing reply and then on 11.2.2020 by courier, reply was sent to the advocate by the petitioners as matter was listed on 15.2.2020. But, as the petitioner being out of station and meanwhile, he felt sick, he could not file delay condonation application along with reply. Meanwhile, 120 days have expired. Thereafter, learned City Civil Court No.8, Ahmedabad common order passed below Exhs.15 and 17 in Commercial Civil Suit No.1561 of 2021 dismissed both the applications and therefore, present petition.

4. We have heard learned advocate Mr. R.V. Dave for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms. Roma Fidelis for the respondent.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Dave mainly argued that the learned trial Court has taken hyper-technical approach in dismissing the applications Exh.15 and 17, by which the defendant of the suit was denied permission to file written statement beyond 120 days from service of the summons. He would further submit that the learned trial Court erred in understanding the principal of substantial justice. If the defendant of the suit is not permitted to file written statement, it would prejudicially affect the defence of the defendant and in fact, the suit would go without the defence on record. He would further submit that before service of the summons, deadly Covid was just completed and it does not enable the defendant to file written statement within the stipulated time period. He would further submit that Hon’ble Apex Court in SMWP No.3 of 2020 has extended the time limit for filing written statement considering Covid 19 situation, which clearly applicable to the facts of the case, but learned Court below has ignored the same and therefore, he would submit that the learned trial Court, without taking into consideration the situation of deadly covid 19 prevalent just before service of the summons, erred in dismissing the application for extending the time period for filing written statement.

6. Upon such submission, learned advocate Mr. Dave submitted to allow this petition and to quash and set aside impugned common order and further to permit the present petitioner to file written statement in Commercial Civil Suit No.1561 of 2021.

7. To buttress his submission, learned advocate Mr. Dave has relied upon judgment of the hsc in case of Prakash Corporates Vs. Dee Vee Projects Limited reported in 2022 (5) SCC 112.

8. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Roma Fidelis appeari