Point of Law: Order VI Rule 15A of CPC as amended and made applicable to commercial disputes before Commercial Courts to hold that pleadings are not verified as prescribed in Appendix-I appended to the Act and same is not valid.

ORDER :

P Naveen Rao, J.

Heard learned counsel Sri A.Venkatesh, representing learned Counsel Sri Allam Ramesh for petitioner and M/s. Resu Law Office appearing for the respondent.

2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of supply of variety of goods. The respondent is a proprietary concern of Mr. Vedera Ravikanth Reddy and engaged in the business of various goods. In the year 2017 the proprietor of the respondent approached the petitioner with a request to supply various baby care products which include clothes, quality baby soaps, Baby oil, Baby powder, Mosquito net, toys, napkins Diapers etc. The respondent claimed that it has secured a sub-contract for supply of baby care products kits titled as “KCR Kits”. The respondent assured that it shall pay the invoice amounts to the petitioner within a week’s time from the invoice date. It was also agreed by the respondent that, in the event of delay in payment of invoice amount to the petitioner, the entire outstanding amount should be paid by the respondent along with an interest @8% per annum for the entire delayed period.

3. In terms of the agreement, the respondent placed orders for supply of Kits telephonically/personally through its proprietor and/or his representatives during the period from 2017 till 2019. Based on such orders, the petitioner supplied the materials from time to time and raised invoices. Total value of which comes to 7,61,51,841/- (Rupees seven crores sixty one lakhs fifty one thousand eight hundred and forty one only).

4. According to petitioner the respondent is the only customer of the petitioner and all the sales made by the petitioner are only to the respondent. The total sales made by the petitioner to the respondent are also reflected in the GSTR 1 form submitted by the plaintiff. The respondent has availed input Tax Credit benefit from the GST authorities basing on the GST taxes paid by the petitioner on the sales made by the petitioner to the respondent.

5. The petitioner maintained a running account in respect of its business transaction with the respondent in respect of supply of KCR kits from time to time to the respondent. The respondent used to make small payments to the petitioner as per its convenience after repeated follow-ups. The last payment made by the respondent to the petitioner was on 29.10.2019 for a sum of 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only).

6. It is submitted that the petitioner approached respondent on several occasions to clear the pending dues but the respondent dodged the payment on one pretext or another. The petitioner along with its staff members visited the respondent office several times and requested to clear the long pending dues but the respondent tried to impress the petitioner by saying that he has high contacts in the Government Department and will clear the pending dues at the earliest. Contending that inspite of requests made in person and legal notices issued demanding payment of outstanding dues the respondent did not comply, the petitioner instituted COS.No.24 of 2021 seeking for a recovery of 2,00,10,790.71/- (Rupees two crores ten thousand seven hundred and ninety and seventy one paisa only) excluding the interest @ 8% P.A., until full payment/realization from respondent herein.

7. Respondent filed counter to I.A.No.162 of 2021 in COS.No.24 of 2021. It is the case of petitioner that in the counter the respondent introduced several new pleas and presented a completely different picture before the Hon’ble Court in respect of the dispute that arose between the parties. To answer their new pleas petitioner sought leave of the Commercial Court to file rejoinder to the counter filed by the respondent. The petitioner also filed its rejoinder. Vide order dated 28.04.2022 the Commercial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this Revision.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the trial Court grossly erred in rejecting its a