$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 176/2023 KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION .....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Devyani Nath and Ms. Vani Sarin, Advocates versus MEET DILIPKUMAR PATEL AND ORS. .....Defendants Through: Ms. Kanishka Sharma and Mr. Utkarsh Joshi, Advocates for D-1.

Ms. Pooja Sarwal, Advocate for D-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R

% 16.01.2026 O.A. 205/2025 (Seeking setting aside of order dated 11.08.2025) &

I.A. 29608/2025 (Delay in filing OA 205/2025)

1. This is a Chamber Appeal filed on behalf of defendant no.3 seeking setting aside of order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Joint Registrar in IA No. 19509/2025, whereby the written statement filed by the defendant no.3 was not taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for the defendant no.3 states that the summons alongwith the copy of the suit plaint was served upon defendant no.3 on 29.03.2025. She submits that the reply to the application under Order I Rule 10, CPC, 1908 impleading the defendant no.3 as a party, was filed within time, however the written statement was filed on 29.07.2025. She submits that the delay of two days cannot become fatal to the substantive right of the defendant no.3 to file the written statement and place the defence on record. She also further submits that in the interest of justice, the written statement ought to have been taken on record to provide the defendant no.3 a fair opportunity to contest on merits. According to learned counsel, the rejection of the written statement would cause prejudice to her rights.

3. Per contra, Ms. Devyani Nath, appearing for the plaintiff submits that the issue in respect of the limitation to file the written statement, so far as the Commercial Courts are concerned, is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court is SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and Ors reported in (2019) 12 SCC 210 She submits that no delay beyond 120 days can at all be condoned. Thus, the order of the Joint Registrar dated 11.08.2025 is sustainable.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is unable to accede to the arguments of learned counsel for defendant no.3. It is admitted that the summons alongwith the copy of the plaint were indeed served upon defendant no.3 on 29.03.2025. The written statement was filed to be filed within 30 days of such service, which admittedly was not done. The law prescribes an extension of 90 days thereafter, to file the written statement for reasons to be recorded and costs to be imposed but proscribes acceptance of such written statement filed beyond 120 days in all. Both, the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have such proscription.

5. Moreover, the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 in terms of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was construed to be a strict provision which brooked no ambiguity so far as the judgment of the Supreme Court in SCG Contracts (supra) is concerned. For the benefit of the Court, para 8 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-

“8) The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 came into force on 23- 10-2015 bringing in their wake certain amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure. In Order 5, Rule 1, sub-rule (1), for the second proviso, the following proviso was substituted:

“Provided further that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other days, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be