The Commercial Courts Act mandates that a defendant forfeits the right to file a written statement after 120 days from service of summons, and this provision prevails over the general provisions of the CPC.

1.This Notice of Motion seeks quashing and setting aside of orders passed by the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master Priya R. Soparkar 2 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2024 23:39:53 :::

transferring the suit with respect to the Applicants herein viz. the Defendants therein to the list of undefended suits as the Defendants failed to file written statement within time and and to condone the delay of 231 days in filing written statement of the Defendants and thereafter to take the written statement on their behalf on record.

2.Mr. Palshikar, learned counsel for the Applicants would submit that the Writ of Summons was served upon the Defendants on 2nd November, 2016. That since the Applicants are based in Vidharbha, they immediately approached their panel Advocates who are based in Nagpur as the Applicants do not have a panel of Advocates for Mumbai. That therefore, the Applicants depended on their panel of Advocates at Nagpur for appointment of Advocate to defend the suit in Mumbai. That accordingly on the suggestion of their panel Advocates they appointed a panel Advocate from Mumbai for representing them in the suit before this Court who filed Vakalatnama on 15th November, 2016. Mr. Palshikar would further submit that the Applicants were coordinating with their Panel Advocate at Nagpur who in turn was coordinating with their panel Advocate at Mumbai. The Applicants were called upon to give parawise remarks for preparation of their written statement. Mr.Palshikar would submit that the Priya R. Soparkar 3 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2024 23:39:53 :::

Defendant No.1 is specifically constituted under the Maharashtra Act No.XXV of 1997 for the purpose of the irrigation project set up in District Bhandara. That the offices of the Applicants No.1, 3 and 4 are situated at Nagpur while that of Applicant No.2 is at Pauni, District Bhandara. It is further submitted that the plaint filed by the Plaintiff was voluminous having various Exhibits which needed to be verified and countered. It is submitted that the documents in respect of the disputes lying in different branch offices of the Applicants had to be collected and details from various employees stationed at the sites had to be obtained which took considerable time to give appropriate and parawise instructions for preparation of the written statement to their Advocate in Mumbai.

3.It is submitted that the commercial suit came up before the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master on 3rd February, 2017 for directions and the Prothonotary passed a conditional order directing the Applicants to file their written statement on or before 8th March, 2017.

4.Mr. Palshikar would submit that the Applicants had been taking all efforts to procure instructions and documents from the relevant Priya R. Soparkar 4 of 50 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2024 23:39:53 :::

officers and employees, however, due to workload and pressure to attend the day to day affairs there was delay in obtaining the same.

That, therefore, a request was made to the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master to grant time, but despite request, the Prothonotary and Senior Master transferred the suit to the list of undefended suits on 8th March, 2017 for want of written statement of the Defendants.

5.It is submitted that the Applicants were advised to initiate appropriate proceedings seeking condonation of delay for filing written statement. Therefore, it is submitted that upon advice of their Advocate, the Applicants, on 7th April 2017, filed Chamber Order (L) No.869 of 2017 alongwith the supporting affidavit setting out their case before the Prothonotary and Senior Master. Mr. Palshikar, learned counsel for the Applicants would submit that the said Chamber Order had been pending hearing and final disposal before the Prothonotary and Senior Master since then. That in the meantime, the panel Advocates for the Applicant No.1 were changed and hence their Advocate in Mumbai requested to take back the case from him. It is submitted