IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi A.P.O. No. 126 of 2023 IN CS 340 OF 2000 IA NO: GA 2 OF 2024 GA 4 OF 2025 TRACTEL TIRFOR INDIA PVT. LTD.

VS TRACTEL INTERNATIONAL S.A.S.

For the Appellant : Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Anindya Basu, Adv.

Mr. Amit Kumar Saha, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Rajshree Kajaria, Adv.

Mr. Soumabho Ghose, Adv.

Ms. Vrinda Kedia, Adv.

Mr. Ankit Prakash, Adv.

Hearing Concluded on : December 12, 2025 Judgement on : January 21, 2026 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

Contents Scope of the Appeal .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Contentions of the Appellant ......................................................................................................................... 2 Contentions of the Respondent No. 1 ......................................................................................................... 6 Genesis ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Issues .................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................. 10 (i)Transfer architecture under Section 15. .......................................................................................... 10 ii) Proceeding before the Transferee Court. ........................................................................................ 13 (iii) Lodgement of Writ of Summons and its failure. ........................................................................ 15 (iv) Adjudication of a matter where a Court lacks jurisdiction .................................................... 21 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 26 Scope of the Appeal

1. Appellant has assailed the order dated March 28, 2023 passed in IA GA 5 of 2023 in CS 340 of 2000.

2. By the impugned order dated March 28, 2023, learned Single Judge has dismissed the application of the appellant seeking extension of time to file written statement.

Contentions of the Appellant

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the writ of summons of the suit was never served upon the defendant as, the same was never lodged by the plaintiff. Therefore, there was no delay in filing the written statement. In fact, the suit is liable to and should be dismissed for not lodging the writ of summons.

4. In support of the contention that, the writ of summons was not lodged by the plaintiff in the suit, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated November 7, 2025 and the report of the office of the Sheriff, pursuant to the order dated November 7, 2025. He has pointed out that, the report of the Office of the Sheriff dated November 11, 2025 states that, no writ of summons for the suit was ever lodged. Consequently, he has contended that, the question of the time period to enter appearance by the appellant in the suit did not commence. Resultantly, the time period to file written statement has not commenced.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the finding of the learned Single Judge that, writ of summons was lodged and served upon the appellant, is perverse in view of the materials on record.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has relied upon Chapter VIII Rules 6 and 7 of the Original Side Rule. He has co