J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court), North-East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi (‘Trial Court’) in C.S. (Comm.) No. 36/2023 titled as “State Bank of India v. Beena Goswami Prop of M/s Avni Infratech” whereby the Trial Court struck off the defence of the Petitioner.

1.1. The Petitioner is the original defendant and the Respondent is the original Plaintiff in the commercial suit. The plaintiff has filed a commercial suit for recovery of money and interest thereon from the defendant.

2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner herein entered appearance before the Trial Court upon receiving an e-mail on

19.05.2023 from the e-Court regarding the institution of the commercial suit. He states that no summons or copy of the paper book was served on the Petitioner with this e-mail.

2.1. He states that the Petitioner was diligent and duly engaged a counsel, who entered appearance before the Trial Court on 08.06.2023 and undertook to file a written statement within three (3) weeks. He states that since the Petitioner herein was not served with a copy of the plaint and the documents; therefore, the counsel for the Petitioner contacted the counsel for the Respondent for a copy of the plaint and documents.

2.2. He states that since a copy of the plaint and documents were not provided by the counsel for the Respondent, the Petitioner was unable to file his written statement within the time granted by the Trial Court on 08.06.2023 and in these circumstances, the Trial Court vide impugned order dated

13.07.2023 struck off the defence of the Petitioner herein.

2.3. He states that the Petitioner has duly applied for the certified copy of the plaint and the documents on 07.07.2023, however, the certified copies have not been provided by the registry of the Trial Court.

2.4. He states that the only reason the Petitioner herein has been unable to file his written statement is due to the non-furnishing of the plaint and the documents. He states that the Petitioner undertakes to file the written statement within one (1) week from today and is also willing to pay legal costs to compensate the Respondent for the delay in the Trial Court.

3. Issue notice.

4. The learned counsel for the Respondent enters appearance and accepts notice. He states that the Petitioner herein has failed to show any diligence in filing the written statement despite having entered appearance on 08.06.2023.

4.1. He states that a perusal of the orders dated 08.06.2023 and 01.07.2023 would evidence that the Petitioner herein duly entered appearance through his counsel and did not raise any dispute with respect to the non-furnishing of the plaint and documents as is sought to be stated in the present petition.

4.2. He states, however, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Respondent, as directed by this Court, he has (earlier today) furnished a copy of the plaint and the documents to the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 5. In response, the learned counsel for the Petitioner confirms that he has received the entire copy of the plaint and the documents from the Respondent;

he has perused the same and is satisfied that the same is complete.

5.1. He reiterates that he will file his written statement, affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed with the plaint, statement of truth and the list of documents of the defendant within a period of one (1) week.

6. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record.

7. As per the statement made in this petition, the summons in the suit were issued by the Trial Court on 18.05.2023. The period of 120 days, even if reckoned from 18.05.2023, would expire on 15.09.2023.

8. The law with respect to the limitation for filing the written statement in commercial suits has been settled by the Supreme Court in SCG Contra