1. The defendants have filed an application being G.A. (Com) No.2 of 2024 praying for condoning the delay of one (1) day in filing the present application and for grant of leave to defend the suit.

2. Mr. Debrup Mukherjee, Learned Advocate representing the defendants submits the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation as the last cause of action alleged to have arose on 1st October, 2019 and time to file suit expired on 1st October, 2022 but the plaintiff has filed the present suit on 21st May, 2024. He submits that even the benefit of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto case during the Covid - 19 period is given effect to, the period of limitation expired on 1st October, 2022.

3. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is bad for mis - joinder of parties. He submits that as per the case of the plaintiff, they had lent and advanced money to the defendant No.1 and there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.2. He submits that the defendant No.2 is only a Director of the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 is a separate legal entity and the plaintiff having entered into a transaction with the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 is no way connected with the alleged transaction. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of Tristar Consultants v. V. Customer Services India P. Ltd. and Another reported in AIR 2007 Del. 157 and submits that in a suit for recovery of money, only such persons can be impleaded as the defendant against whom averments are made which on proof would entitle the plaintiff to a decree whether jointly or severally or in the alternative against the said persons named as defendants.

4. Mr. Mukherjee submits that there is no cause of action for filing of suit arose as there is no default on the part of the defendant No.1. The plaintiff had the cheque dated 1st October, 2019 but has never presented the same for encashment and thus there is no cause of action arose for filing of the suit.

5. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the plaintiff has relied upon payment of TDS from the period from 3rd June, 2014 till 31st January, 2020 but the last TDS disclosed by the plaintiff is only for the financial year 2017 - 2018. He submits that the last balance confirmation is also of 31st March, 2019. The plaintiff has not disclosed any document to say that the time for payment of loan was extended from time to time. He submits that there is no mercantile document disclosed by the plaintiff to say the suit coming under the purview of Commercial Suit.

6. Mr. Mukherjee submits that in para 7 of the plaint, the plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 10% per annum and in paragraph 16, the plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 24% per annum which is contradictory, thus no decree can be passed.

7. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the plaintiff has not lodged the writ of summons in accordance with law. He submits that the plaintiff has made several corrections in the plaint but the writ of summons was issued along with the uncorrected plaint and thus the writ of summons served upon the defendants cannot be treated as proper service of writ of summons. He submits that from the order dated 28 April, 2025, it is clear that the corrected copy of the plaint was served upon the defendant only on 28th April, 2025 in terms of the order passed by this Court.

8. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the defendant has a plausible defence to the instant suit and without deciding the issue raised by the defendant, the suit cannot be decided summarily. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of B.L. Kashyap and Sons Limited v. JMS Steels and Power Corporation and Another, reported in 2022 (3) SCC 294. : (AIR 2022 SC 785).

9. Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Learned Senior Advocate representing the plaintiff submits that the defendants have paid last interest to the plaintiff on 18th June, 2019, thus the cause of action f