ORDER :

P Naveen Rao, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri M Annapurnayya and learned counsel for respondents Sri Shyam S Agarwal.

2. Revision Petitioner is plaintiff, in O.S No. 472 of 2016 (New COS No. 12 of 2018) on the file of Court of XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar for recovery of 2,44,02,487.61. Respondents herein are defendants. On service of summons from the Civil Court, defendants entered appearance on 18.5.2016 but no written statement was filed within 120 days from the date of receipt of summons. Even without filing written statement, I.A No. 148 of 2016 was filed under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC challenging the jurisdiction of Civil Court. As the dispute involved is a commercial dispute, consequent to establishment of Commercial Courts in Ranga Reddy district, the suit was transferred to the Commercial Court i.e., Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and renumbered as COS No. 12 of 2018. After transfer of the suit to Commercial Court, said I.A. was renumbered as I.A. No. 89 of 2018. During the pendency of said I.A., by order dated 4.7.2017 defendants were set ex-parte on the ground that no written statement was filed within the time. By order dated 27.8.2018, I A No. 89 of 2018 was disposed of giving liberty to the defendants to lead evidence regarding jurisdiction. Aggrieved thereby, C.R.P. No. 942 of 2019 was filed and the same was allowed by this Court by order dated 22.7.2019. On 26.11.2019, I A No. 186 of 2021 was filed praying to set aside order dated 4.7.2017 in COS No. 12 of 2018 setting them ex-parte. By order dated 8.6.2022, I A No. 186 of 2021 was allowed setting aside ex-parte order dated 4.7.2017 and permitting the defendants to prosecute the suit. Aggrieved thereby, this revision is filed.

3. According to learned counsel for petitioner, Order V of Civil Procedure Code was amended by ‘The Commercial Courts Act, 2015’ (for short the Act, 2015) which requires filing of written statement within a maximum period of 120 days from the date of receipt of summons and if no written statement is filed within 120 days, right to file written statement stands forfeited and Commercial Court has no jurisdiction to relax this time frame. He would submit that even though it is a pending suit in a civil Court transferred to Commercial Court, as per Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC as amended 120 days period still remains and in terms thereof the written statement requires to be filed within 120 days. He further submits that admittedly, defendants have not filed written statement within time, therefore, order of the trial Court setting aside the order placing the defendants ex-parte to the suit on the ground that written statement was not filed within 120 days, is illegal.

3.1. He would further submit that defendants were set ex-parte on 4.7.2017 but they took more than two years four months to file application to set aside ex-parte order and to file written statement, but no satisfactory explanation is offered for the delay. Even assuming that they are entitled to seek an order to set aside the ex-parte order, respondents/defendants have not filed any application praying to condone the delay beyond the period of 120 days. Therefore, application filed by the respondents is not maintainable.

3.2. He would submit that the trial Court failed to appreciate the above facts and erroneously allowed the application.

3.3. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:

R.K.Roja Vs U.S. Rayudu, (2016) 14 SCC 275; SCG Contracts (India) Private Ltd Vs K.S.Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited, (2019) 12 SCC 210; Prakash Corporates Vs Dee Vee Projects Limited, (2022) 5 SCC 112, N.Bayyapu Reddy Vs M.Surya Prakash, 2011 SCC OnLine AP 594; Amoda Iron Steel Limited Vs Sneha Anlytics and Scientifics, 2022 SCC OnLine AP 136.

4. Per contra, according to learned counsel for respondents as defendants were contesting t