ORDER

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 13.09.2022 whereby the Commercial Court, Bhopal declined to take the written statement of the petitioner on record by holding that it is filed with undue delay.

2. The admitted facts between the parties are that the respondent/ plaintiff filed a Class-B suit before District Court, Betul on 21.01.2019 which was registered as RCS-1B/19. After Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Act of 2015) came into being, the said suit was transferred to Commercial Court, Bhopal on 31.07.2021 and was re-registered on 18.04.2022 as case No. COMMS/06/2022. The petitioner/defendant upon re-registration of the matter under the Commercial Courts Act before Commercial Court, Bhopal submitted his written statement on 13.09.2022. The learned Commercial Court by the impugned order dated 13.09.2022 rejected the same by taking into account the judgment of Supreme Court in (2019) 12 SCC 210 [SCG Contracts (INDIA) Private Ltd. Vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors]. The Court below further held that merely because an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC of petitioner/defendant was pending, it cannot be a ground to extend the limitation for filing written statement beyond the period of 120 days.

Contention of Petitioner :

3. Shri Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a plain reading of Sub-section 4 of Section 15 along with proviso appended to the Act of 2015 makes it abundantly clear that the intention of law makers was that upon transfer of matter to Commercial Court, the said Court will prepare a fresh time line. If written statement is filed within the said time line prescribed, it cannot be declined. Order V Rule 1 CPC has lost much of its shine in a case of this nature in view of proviso appended therein.

4. The next limb of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that curiously, in the judgment of Supreme Court in SCG Contracts (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court did not deal with Subsection 4 of Section 15 and its proviso and therefore, the said judgment is not a hurdle for the petitioner.

5. By placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Amoda Iron Steel Limited Vs. Sneha Anlytics and Scientifics (Civil Revision No. 1261 of 2020 decided on 25.01.2022), Shri Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the point involved in the instant case is dealt with in-extenso and para Nos. 37 and 61 contain complete answer to the question involved. In the light of aforesaid, the learned Commercial Court has committed an error of law in closing the right of filing written statement by treating it to be barred by time.

Stand of Respondent :

6. Sounding a Contra note, Shri Pramdendra Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that in the teeth of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, no fault can be found in the impugned order of Court below. Similarly, merely because application under order VII Rule 11 CPC of petitioner was pending, it cannot be a ground to seek extension of time for filing written statement.

7. Faced with this, Shri Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this point relating to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is no more res integra and the same has been dealt in para-61 of the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Amoda Iron Steel Limited (supra).

8. Parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.

9. We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

Findings :

10. Before dealing with rival contentions advanced at the Bar, it is apposite to quote relevant portion of Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 :-

'15. Transfer of pending cases :-

(1) ........................

(2) ........................

(3) ........................

(4) The Commercial Division or Commercial Court, as the case may be, may hold case management hearings in respect of such transferred suit or applic