JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The petitioner, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has assailed the legality and propriety of the order dated 09.12.2023, passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram, whereby the defence of the petitioner came to be struck off on account of the petitioner’s failure to file the written statement within the statutorily prescribed period.

2. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the respondent–plaintiff instituted a commercial suit seeking recovery of money. It is the case of the petitioner that notice of the said suit was allegedly served on 21.07.2025; however, the service was not effected in conformity with the requirements contemplated under the Companies Act, 2013, inasmuch as the notice was served at the residential address of proforma respondents No.2 and 3, rather than being duly effected upon the petitioner-company in the manner known to law. It is further asserted that neither the petitioner nor the said proforma respondents were personally served.

2.1. The petitioner thereafter entered appearance through counsel on 09.09.2025, whereupon the matter was adjourned to 27.10.2025, with a direction to the petitioner to file its written statement in accordance with the mandate of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) as applicable to commercial disputes.

2.2. On the adjourned date, i.e., 27.10.2025, the petitioner failed to file the written statement and sought an adjournment, which was granted by the learned Commercial Court subject to payment of costs quantified at Rs. 2,000/- vide order of the same date. The petitioner subsequently complied with the said direction by depositing the costs and filed the written statement on 09.12.2025, accompanied by an application seeking its acceptance on record.

2.3. However, by virtue of the impugned order, the learned Commercial Court declined to take the written statement on record and proceeded to strike off the defence of the petitioner, primarily on the ground that the written statement had been filed beyond the outer time limit prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as applicable to commercial suits.

2.4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revision petition.

3. I have duly considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have minutely examined the paper-book.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is legally unsustainable and contrary to the settled principles of law. It is submitted that the alleged service upon the petitioner as well as the proforma respondents was not effected in conformity with the mandatory provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, inasmuch as the notice was served at the residential address of proforma respondents No.2 and 3 and not upon the petitioner in the manner recognized by law.

4.1. It is further argued that the petitioner was prevented from filing the written statement within the stipulated period owing to the ambiguity in the orders passed by the learned Commercial Court. According to the learned counsel, the tenor of the order dated 27.10.2025 clearly conveyed that the petitioner had been permitted to file the written statement on or before 09.12.2025. Consequently, when the petitioner sought to file the written statement on 09.12.2025, the same ought to have been accepted on record. It is thus contended that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for any ambiguity or inadvertent error in the order of the Court, as it is a well-established principle of law that a litigant should not be prejudiced on account of an act or mistake of the Court.

5. The order dated 27.10.2025 reads as under:-

“Today, joint power of attorney on behalf of defendants no.1 and 3 and separate power of attorney on behalf of defendant no.2 have been filed. Writte