Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3530

CM(M) 1343/2022

Page 1 of 4

$~25

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 16.05.2023

+

CM(M) 1343/2022 & CM APPL. 52053/2022

M/S MN AUTOMOBILE PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Petitioner

versus

GURIQBAL SINGH & ANR.

..... Respondents

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Sudeep Kumar Shrotriya, Mr.

Prakhar Singh and Mr. Dhananjay P.,

Advocates

For the Respondent :

Mr. Varun S. Ahuja, Advocate.

CORAM:

JUDGMENT

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)

1.

Petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.10.2022 in CS

(COMM) 317/22 titled as “Guriqbal Singh vs. M/S M N Automobile

Private Limited & Ors.” whereby the learned Trial Court on the failure

of the petitioner/ defendant to file the written statement had closed the

right to file the same.

[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ defendant submits

that the petitioner was served on 29.06.2022 by summons of the suit,

Digitally Signed

By:VINOD KUMAR

Signing Date:22.05.2023

13:45:46

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3530

CM(M) 1343/2022

Page 2 of 4

though in the impugned order, the learned Trial Court had noted that the

petitioner was served on 15.06.2022.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the order dated

13.07.2022, it is clearly observed by the learned Trial Court that

defendant No.1 was served on 29.06.2022, though the impugned order

notes the date of service as 15.06.2022. In any case, learned counsel

submits that whether the time period to file the written statement is

reckoned with effect from 15.06.2022 or 29.06.2022, filing of the

written statement on 06.10.2022 through email was within that

stipulated period of 120 days, as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the Commerical Court

Act, 2015.

4.

For the intervening period of the delay in filing the written

statement, learned counsel submits that vide the application under Order

VIII Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of the CPC, 1908, detailed reasons were

given apart from the fact that the counsel had categorically mentioned in

paragraph 5 of the said application that someone in the family of the

counsel for the petitioner/ defendant was tested positive for COVID-19.

5.

Learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court while

passing the impugned order had not considered the medical documents

placed on record. In any case, learned counsel submits that the period of

120 days had not elapsed even by 06.10.2022.

6.

Learned counsel submits that the delay which has occurred is 67

days over and above the 30 days period, as stipulated and could have

been condoned.

7.

Learned counsel submits that the procedures, even though a part

Digitally Signed

By:VINOD KUMAR

Signing Date:22.05.2023

13:45:46

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3530

CM(M) 1343/2022

Page 3 of 4

of the Commercial CourtS Act, 2015 are still the handmaid of justice..

8.

Mr. Varun S. Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

opposes the aforesaid submissions and submits that the learned Trial

Court has passed a correct order in view of the facts that had arisen in

the present case and prays that the present petition be dismissed with

costs.

9.

After having considered the submissions of the parties, this Court

is of the considered opinion that so far as the Commercial Court Act,

2015 is concerned, there cannot be any doubt that the timelines, as

stipulated, are to be observed strictly.

10.

The rigors of the Commercial Courts Act have been already

settled by the Supreme Court in SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited

vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Ltd. And Ors reported in

(2019) 12 SC 210. However, this Court has considered the de