The court held that failure to inform defendants of the commercial nature of the suit led to their inability to file a timely written statement, which was unjust and warrants restoration of rights.

ORDER :

R.Vijayakumar, J.

These two revision petitions have been filed by the defendants in O.S.No.88 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi.

(A) Factual Matrix:

2.A perusal of the plaint averments reveals that the defendants in the suit have entered into a contract at Thoothukudi for purchase of 2643 bags of laird yellow lentils and 2440 bags of Eston yellow lentils from Thoothukudi godown. After lifting the cargo, since the payment was not paid, the suit has been filed for recovery of the above said amount.

3.The respondent herein had filed the above said suit for the relief of recovery of money for a sum of Rs.49,38,820/- from the defendants with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum and for payment of cost. 4.CRP(MD).No.7 of 2025 has been filed challenging the dismissal of an application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C to reject the plaint. CRP(MD).No.8 of 2025 has been filed by the defendants challenging the allowing of an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 5 Rule 1 of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT 2015 wherein the trial Court has passed an order forfeiting the rights of the defendants to file a written statement. The written statement that was already filed after a lapse of 120 days has to be taken off the record.

5.Challenging both these orders, the present revision petitions have been filed by the defendants.

(B)Submissions made on either side:

6.According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the summons received by the defendants did not indicate that it is a commercial suit. The copy of the plaint served along with the summons also does not indicate that it has been filed or treated as a commercial suit. Only when the defendants counsel received a communication from the Sheristadar of the District Court on 06.02.2023, the defendants came to know that the suit has been treated as a commercial suit. The defendants were not privy to the return orders passed by the District Court while entertaining plaint. The defendants were not put to notice at any point of time that the suit has been initiated as a commercial suit. The written statement has been filed on the 146^th day from the date of receipt of summons.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that the verification of pleadings in a commercial suit as contemplated under Order-VI Rule 15-A of COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT has also not been filed along with the plaint. When a copy application was filed seeking a copy of the verification of pleadings as contemplated under Order-VI Rule 15-A, it was returned by the office of the Principal District Court stating that no such verification has been filed.

8.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners had further contended that in Paragraph No.10 of the order impugned in the revision petition (CRP(MD).No.8 of 2025), the Principal District Judge has only relied upon a return order passed by the office on 09.09.2019 to arrive at a finding that the suit is taken on file as a commercial suit, though the number was given only as O.S.No.88 of 2019. According to the petitioners, the defendants were not aware of this return order and the return order was not made known to the defendants at any point of ti