1. There is one plaintiff in the main suit. Likewise, there is one defendant in the main suit. Sole defendant in the main suit is the applicant herein. Obviously, sole plaintiff in the main suit is the lone respondent herein.

2. Parties in this application are referred to by their respective ranks in the main suit for the sake of convenience and clarity. In other words, the lone applicant herein is referred to as defendant and the lone respondent in this application is referred to as plaintiff.

3. Main suit has been filed alleging infringement of Copyright. In this view of the matter, when this suit was first listed before this Commercial Division on 15.12.2017 vide proceedings dated 15.12.2017, I had expressed my intention to exercise jurisdiction over this suit after examining the plaint and hearing the counsel. As those proceedings are relevant, I deem it appropriate to extract the same. Proceedings dated 15.12.2017 reads as under:

“Mrs. Aprajitha, learned counsel on record for the plaintiff, is before this Commercial Division.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the suit will qualify to be heard by this Commercial Division as it pertains alleged infringement of copy right. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel that in the light of Section 62(2) of the Copy Right Act, 1957, this Commercial Divisions will have jurisdiction to hear the suit under the first proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016), (hereinafter referred to as Act 4 of 2016).

3. I perused the suit and I am inclined to accept the submission.

4. However, it is made clear that the defendant, who is not before this Court today, chooses to appear and makes submissions on jurisdiction, the defendant will also be heard and suitable decision will be taken, if the defendant has anything contrary to say.

5. Be that as it may, I am informed that the Interlocutory Applications taken out by the plaintiff have been allowed in the instant suit and I am also informed that there is no inter-court appeal.

6. Therefore, having expressed the intention to exercise jurisdiction over this suit, I now turn to the stage of the suit.

7. The defendant has entered appearance through a counsel. To be noted, the Interlocutory Applications had been contested by the defendant. But, none appears today for the defendant.

With an intention to give one more opportunity to the defendant, Post the matter under the caption 'Undefended Board' on 21.12.2017.”

4. Thereafter, on 18.01.2018, Mr. C. Ramesh learned counsel has entered appearance for the sole defendant and he has now filed a written statement together with supporting documents and advance copies to the plaintiff counsel. I am informed that the suit summons was served on the sole defendant on 19.07.2016.

5. In the light of the above said narrative/chronicle of trajectory of this litigation, sole defendant has taken out this instant application with a prayer to condone 520 days delay in filing written statement. To be noted, sole defendant has taken out this application under Order V Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC for brevity). Further to be noted, Order V Rule 1 is the substantial provision of law invoked and obviously it has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules.

6. From the narrative supra, it will be clear that this Commercial Division has expressed its intention to exercise jurisdiction over this suit on 15.12.2017. Therefore, a question arises as to whether the aforesaid provision i.e. Order V Rule 1 would apply to the instant case. In search of an answer to this question, I turn to proviso to Section 15(4) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016), which is hereinafter referred to as Act 4 of 2016.

7. To be noted, there are two provisos to sub-rule (1) of Rule