J U D G M E N T

1. The petitioner has preferred to invoke the power of superintendence vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution impugning the order dated 10.04.2023 passed by learned District Judge (Commercial Court) -01, West, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi (in short “Commercial Court”) in CS (COMM) No. 320/2021 titled as “Sh. Naveen Sabharwal Proprietor M/s Nav Prints vs Shr. Rajesh Wadhawan Proprietor M/s Global Trendz” whereby petitioner’s written statement was not allowed to form part of the record in view of non-conformity to Order VI Rule 15A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “CPC”) thereby striking of his defence in the suit. 2. It would be apposite to elucidate the relevant facts starting with the respondent filing a suit for recovery of Rs. 33,50,081/- against the petitioner before the learned Commercial Court wherein the summons were issued to the petitioner on 13.08.2021. The petitioner was served with summon of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1297/2023 Page 1 of 10 suit through WhatsApp and email on 26.08.2021. On 23.10.2021, the petitioner did not appear before the learned Commercial Court and hence was proceeded ex-parte. Later that day, the petitioner appeared before the Court and was apprised of the order passed and an application for setting aside ex-parte order was moved on the same day. The application of the petitioner was allowed on 25.11.2021 and the ex-parte order was set aside by the learned Commercial Court and the matter was posted for filing of written statement subject to issue of limitation on 05.01.2022.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner on 04.01.2022 filed the written statement along with the affidavit through the email and also filed the physical copy of the same on 06.01.2022 before the learned Commercial Court.

4. Upon filing of the written statement, the respondent filed replication along with an application under Order VI Rule 15A CPC for striking the petitioner’s written statement off the record on the ground that the written statement as filed by the petitioner does not comply with the mandate of Order VI Rule 15A CPC as the same is not duly supported by the statement of truth and signatures are not appended on each and every page of the written statement.

5. Due to non-appearance of the petitioner, the learned Commercial Court on 09.05.2022 again proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner and posted the matter for ex-parte plaintiff’s evidence. Upon learning of this, petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC seeking to set aside the said ex-parte order dated 09.05.2022 which was allowed vide order dated 26.11.2022 subject to cost of Rs. 4,000. Matter was then fixed for reply and consideration of the application of the respondent under Order VI Rule 15A CPC on 24.01.2023.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1297/2023 Page 2 of 10

6. Subsequently, the petitioner filed reply to the said application of the respondent and also moved an application under Order V Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement after curing the defective written statement supported by statement of truth and with signatures appended on each and every page. Respondent filed reply to the application of the petitioner and the arguments were heard on 18.03.2023. Vide the impugned order, the learned Commercial Court dismissed the petitioner’s application under Order V Rule 1 CPC and allowed the application of the respondent under Order VI Rule 15A CPC thereby striking off the written statement from the record by not allowing the petitioner to rely on it. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

Contentions of the Parties

7. Mr. Tarun Satija, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had filed the written statement on 04.01.2022 and its physical copy was placed on record on 06.01.2022 which is within the extended time of limitation as provided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension