IMPORTANT POINT
The need for expediency and quick resolution in commercial matters, indicating a paradigm shift in the approach to condoning delays.

1. The petitioners herein are the appellants in Commercial Appeal No. 1/2023 of the District Court, Kozhikode and the defendants in Commercial Suit, C.S. No. 109/2020, of the Commercial Court, Kozhikode. Respondent herein is the plaintiff C.S. No. 109/2020. The petitioners are aggrieved by Exts.P7 and P8 orders of the Principal District Court, Kozhikode. The gist of the facts involved in this case is briefed as below:

The respondent/plaintiff filed Commercial Suit as C.S. 109/2020 before the Commercial Court, Kozhikode for realisation of money. The plaintiff/respondent was the successful bidder in e-auction, for purchase of teakwood, conducted by rd defendant/Divisional Forest Officer, on behalf of the 1st defendant/State of Kerala. An EMD of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by respondent/plaintiff. Besides, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was also paid towards the value of the material. Alleging that further payment was not made within the time, the above referred amount of rupees 3,50,000/- was forfeited by the State, challenging which, the instant suit was filed. The suit was decreed in favour of respondent/plaintiff vide Ext.P3 judgment. Challenging the same, the petitioners/ defendants preferred Ext.P6 appeal, along with Ext.P5 petition to condone the delay of 102 days in preferring the appeal. Ext.P5 application to condone the delay was dismissed by the Appellate Court, vide Ext.P7. Consequently, Ext.P6 appeal was also dismissed, vide Ext.P8 order. Exts.P7 and P8 are under challenge in this Original Petition.

2. Heard Sri. T.P. Sajan, learned Special Government Pleader for the petitioners and Sri. A. Komu, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Learned Government Pleader based their contention upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of Maharashtra vs. M/s Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. 2021 KHC 6175, wherein a liberal approach in condoning delay is called for, if no negligence and laches on the part of petitioner is found. The reason espoused by the petitioners for condoning the delay is that the office of the Government Pleader met with a technical failure, resulting in delay in e-filing the appeal memorandum, which according to the petitioners is a genuine reason for condonation of delay of 102 days.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the aforesaid contentions and placed a few decisions for consideration of this court. The counsel contended that the reason espoused by the petitioners is not a valid ground for condoning the delay and setting aside orders of dismissal of delay petition and appeal. Section 5 of Limitation Act is generally given a liberal interpretation, but the same cannot be adopted in case of commercial disputes, having regard to the legislative intent with which Commercial Courts Act was enacted. It was emphasised that the enactement contemplates adjudication of disputes in a swift, time-bound manner, with lesser hassles to the litigating parties. At best, a short delay, beyond the stipulated period, can be condoned, whereas in the instant case, the delay is more than double the period stipulated by the statute, which cannot be condoned at all, is the contention urged.

5. Having heard the learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for the respondent, this court, endorses the submission made the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. This court notice that the statutory time limit for filing a commercial appeal under section 13 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is sixty days. In this case, Ext.P6 appeal was filed with a delay of 102 days. The reason espoused is an alleged technical error occurred in e-filing. In the decision relied upon by the petitioners in M/s Borse Brothers (supra), the Court observes as below:

“61. Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the