MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner-defendant Shri Balaji Industrial Products Limited against order dated 09.02.2018 passed by the Commercial Court at Jaipur (for short 'the Commercial Court') in a suit filed by the respondent no. 1-plaintiff AIA Engineering Limited. The Commercial Court by the aforesaid order, allowed the application filed by the respondent no. 1-plaintiff under Order V Rule 1 CPC permitting the plaintiff to file 'Statement of Truth' envisaged in Order VI Rule 15A for verification, dismissed application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order VI Rule 15A(1) read with Section 4 of The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act of 2015') and declined to declare that the suit was not duly instituted. By the aforesaid order, the Commercial Court has also dismissed the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Section 148 read with Section 151 CPC seeking extension of time for filing of written statement. Challenging that order, further prayer has been made that the Commercial Court be directed to take written statement filed on 12.10.2017 on record as per proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII CPC and not to take 'Statement of Truth' filed by the respondent-plaintiff on record.

2. Arguments in this case were heard in two phases. Earlier after conclusion of arguments, matter was closed for judgment on 20.04.2018. However, subsequently an application (No. 28833/2018) was filed by the petitioner on 04.05.2018 seeking to place on record copy of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 (for short 'the Ordinance of 2018'). Therefore, the matter was again listed on 10.05.2018 before the Court under the category "To Be Mentioned" and thereafter, the matter was listed for hearing on 17.05.2018, on which date, further arguments as to the effect of this Ordinance were heard and the matter was again closed for judgment.

3. We have heard Mr. Sudhir Chandra and Mr. R.P. Singh, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Abhay Jain and Mr. Prekhar Gupta appearing on behalf of the petitioner-defendant; Mr. Mahendra Singh; Mr. Vikas Balia, Mr. Akash Shrivastava and Mr. Raunak Bapna, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant argued that the Commercial Court has committed gross jurisdictional error by closing written statement of the defendant-petitioner during pendency of the application of the respondent-plaintiff under Order V Rule 1 CPC. Factum of non-filing of the 'Statement of Truth' by the plaintiff with the plaint goes to the root of the controversy and therefore a specific application under Order VI Rule 15A was filed by the petitioner-defendant before the Commercial Court. As per Section 27 CPC read with Order V Rule 1 CPC, the Commercial Court could have issued summons to the petitioner-defendant only when the suit was duly instituted. A suit to be "duly instituted" has to comply with requirement of Section 26(2) CPC as amended by the Act of 2015, which provides the form and manner of an affidavit required under Order VI Rule 15A CPC. Corresponding provision to Section 26 CPC is Order IV Rule 1 CPC, which deals with institution of the suit, starts with the heading "suit to be commenced by plaint". Further, Order IV Rule 1(3) CPC specifically provides that the plaint shall not be deemed to be 'duly instituted' unless it complies with the requirements specified in sub-rule (1) and (2). Sub-rule (2) provides that every plaint shall comply with the rules contained in Order VI and VII CPC. In order to a suit to be 'duly instituted', the affidavit in the form and manner provided under Order VI Rule 15A of Commercial Court Act, 2015 is mandatorily required to be filed as per the condition inserted in Clause (2) of Section 26 CPC by add