The court ruled that the statutory requirement for pleadings in commercial disputes is mandatory, permitting no reliance on unverified statements, but allowed the appellants to remedy this by depositing claimed amounts.

JUDGMENT :

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.

On the ground that loans advanced by the respondent herein were not repaid by the appellant(s), the respondent filed two suits before the Commercial Court, Salem. In C.O.S.No.25 of 2022, the respondent/plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs.4,52,15,725/-, which included the principal sum of Rs.3,41,00,000/-. The sole defendant therein is the appellant in Appeal (CAD) No.12 of 2023. In C.O.S.No.26 of 2022, the respondent/plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs.1,20,74,401/-, which included the principal claim of Rs.90,00,000/-. The defendants therein are the appellants in Appeal (CAD)No.13 of 2023.

2. The appellant(s) herein did not file the written statements within the specified time limit from the date of receipt of the suit summons. However, the written statements in both the suits were filed within the outer limit of 120 days; the applications to condone the delay in filing the written statements were allowed; and the written statements were received. The appellant(s), however, did not append the statement of truth to the written statements as required under Order VI, Rule 15A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC), as applicable to commercial disputes under the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015 (the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT ). In those circumstances, the Court refused to rely on the pleading by applying sub-rule (4) of Rule 15A of Order VI of the CPC. Evidence was adduced by examining the respondent/plaintiff as P.W.1 in both the suits and several documents were exhibited, including the relevant promissory notes, cheques and cheque return memos. In both the suits, P.W.1 was cross-examined on behalf of the respective appellant(s)/defendant(s). The attester and scribe of the promissory notes was examined as P.W.2. From the record, it appears that P.W.2 was not cross-examined on behalf of the defendant(s).

3. Since the respective written statement was not taken into consideration on account of non-verification, the Court did not consider it necessary to frame issues. The Court, however, formulated the following points for consideration:

(1) Whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit?

(2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the amount from the defendant(s) as prayed?

4. The trial Court held that it had territorial jurisdiction and that the dispute was a commercial dispute as per section 2(1)(c)(i) of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT . It was further held that the suit is not barred by limitation because the suits were presented within three years from the dates of the respective promissory notes. As regards the third point for consideration, namely, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amount claimed from the defendant(s), the Court took note of the documentary evidence in the form of cheques, cheque return memos and promissory notes. By relying upon the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the NI Act), the Court concluded that the rebuttable presumption raised in favour of the plaintiff was not rebutted by the defendant(s). On such basis, the suits were decreed.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant(s) assails the judgments and decrees on multiple grounds. The first ground of challenge is that Section 12A of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT was not complied with. The second ground of challenge is that the respective written statement of the appellant(s) was not taken into consideration in spite of the