J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugns the order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the DJ (Commercial)-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘Trial Court’) in CS (Comm.) No. 3014/2019, whereby the Trial Court dismissed the application filed on 16.01.2023 by the Petitioner for curing the defects in the written statement filed on 26.10.2021 and struck off the written statement filed by the Petitioner.

1.1. The Trial Court struck off the written statement on the ground that (i) the same was not signed on each page, (ii) it was not accompanied with the statement of truth, and (iii) and the defendant had not filed an affidavit of admission/denial of documents.

1.2. The Trial Court held that the application for curing the defects was filed after the maximum period of 120 days to file the written statement as described under Order V Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘Act of 2015’).

2. The Petitioner is the defendant no.1 and the Respondent is the plaintiff in the commercial suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.

28,18,062/- along with interest at 15% per annum.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the written statement was filed by the Petitioner on 26.10.2021 after serving an advance copy of the same to the Respondent.

3.1. He states that the replication to the written statement was duly filed by the Respondent on 07.12.2021. In the said replication, no objection was raised by the Respondent as regards non-signing of each page of the written statement or non-filing of the statement of truth or the affidavit of admission/denial of documents.

3.2. He states that on 04.07.2022, when the matter was listed before the Trial Court, it was the learned Judge who made an observation that the written statement was not compliant with the provisions of Order VI Rule 15A of CPC as amended by Act of 2015. He states it was thereafter, that the Respondent herein raised said objection and filed a formal application on 25.07.2022, under Order VI Rule 15A(1) and (5) of CPC, as amended by Act of 2015 for taking off from the record the written statement.

3.3. He states that the Petitioner herein as well filed an application on 16.01.2023 seeking permission of the Trial Court to cure the defects and file the statement of truth. He states that the said defects are curable in nature and in this regard, he relies upon the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Harji Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 2457.

3.4. He states that the Petitioner be subjected to reasonable legal costs and be permitted to cure the said defects.

4. The learned counsel for the Respondent has entered appearance. He states that the Petitioner herein was duly served on 17.03.2021 with the summons and he unreasonably delayed the filing of the written statement by filing the same on 26.10.2021.

4.1. He states that though the defects in the written statement were made known to the Petitioner as early as on 04.07.2022, the application seeking to cure the said defects was filed belatedly on 16.01.2023.

4.2. He states therefore, due to this lackadaisical approach of the defendant, the Trial Court has rightly declined to grant permission to the Petitioner to cure the said defects.

5. This Court has considered the submission of the parties and perused the record.

6. The Petitioner on 17.07.2023 has filed before this Court a copy of the written statement duly signed on each page accompanied with the statement of truth and the affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff.

7. It is matter of record that Petitioner entered appearance on 17.03.2021 and the written statement was filed on 26.10.2021. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition 3/2020 in ‘Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation’, the limitation period stood suspended du