ORDER :

Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - Although, the matter comes up on an application filed by the respondents No.1 & 3/defendants No.1 & 3 seeking vacation of ex parte interim order dated 17.10.2019; but, on the request of learned counsels for the respective parties, the writ petition is heard on its merit at this stage.

2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality and validity of the order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the learned Commercial Court No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.24/2019 whereby, the application filed by the respondents No.1 to 3/defendants No.1 to 3 to take the written statement on record, has been allowed qua the respondents No.1 & 3/defendants No.1 & 3 as ex parte proceeding was already drawn against the respondent No.2/defendant No.2.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner/plaintiff (for brevity "the petitioner") filed a suit against the respondents No.1 to 4 for recovery of money in the Court of learned Additional District Judge No.1, Behror, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned ADJ") wherein, right of the respondents No.1 & 3 to file written statement was closed vide order dated 16.10.2017. On 24.01.2018, the respondents No.1 to 3 filed an application along with written statement praying therein for taking the same on record. Before the application could be decided, the matter stood transferred to the learned Commercial Court No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") under Section 15 (2) of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015 (for short "the Act of 2015). The application filed by the respondents No.1 to 3 for taking the written statement on record, has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 10.07.2019 qua the respondents No.1 & 3 subject to a cost of Rs.25,000/-, the subject-matter of challenge.

4. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court erred in allowing the application inasmuch as the written statement was filed beyond the permissible limit of 90/120 days. Relying upon a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 25.01.2022 in case of Amoda Iron Steel Limited v. Sneha Anlytics and Scientifics: Civil Revision Petition No.1261/2020, learned counsel submits that the Commercial Court did not have jurisdiction to extend the time once granted to file the written statement under Section 15 (4) of the Act of 2015. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 10.07.2019 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the respondents be dismissed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the provisions of the Act of 2015 were inapplicable in the present case inasmuch they had already filed written statement along with the application dated 24.01.2018; but, before the application could be decided, the case stood transferred to the learned Commercial Court on 12.11.2018. He submits that the learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by them in the interest of justice subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- which they have already paid and hence, no interference by this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction is warranted. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court dated 28.01.2021 in case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Colonial Life Insurance Company (Trinidad) L