Section 15(4) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 overrides the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, which mandates forfeiture of the right to file a written statement after 120 days.

This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution takes

exception to the order dated 13.09.2022 whereby the Commercial

Court, Bhopal declined to take the written statement of the petitioner

on record by holding that it is filed with undue delay.

The admitted facts between the parties are that the respondent/

plaintiff filed a Class-B suit before District Court, Betul on 21.01.2019

which was registered as RCS-1B/19. After Commercial Courts Act,

2015 (Act of 2015) came into being, the said suit was transferred to

Commercial Court, Bhopal on 31.07.2021 and was re-registered on

18.04.2022 as case No. COMMS/06/2022. The petitioner/defendant

upon re-registration of the matter under the Commercial Courts Act

before Commercial Court, Bhopal submitted his written statement on

13.09.2022. The learned Commercial Court by the impugned order

dated 13.09.2022 rejected the same by taking into account the

judgment of Supreme Court in (2019) 12 SCC 210 [SCG Contracts

(INDIA) Private Ltd. Vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private

Limited and Ors]. The Court below further held that merely because

an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC of

petitioner/defendant was pending, it cannot be a ground to extend the

limitation for filing written statement beyond the period of 120 days.

3

Contention of Petitioner :

3.

Shri Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that a plain reading of Sub-section 4 of Section 15 along with

proviso appended to the Act of 2015 makes it abundantly clear that the

intention of law makers was that upon transfer of matter to

Commercial Court, the said Court will prepare a fresh time line. If

written statement is filed within the said time line prescribed, it cannot

be declined. Order V Rule 1 CPC has lost much of its shine in a case of

this nature in view of proviso appended therein.

4.

The next limb of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner

is that curiously, in the judgment of Supreme Court in SCG Contracts

(INDIA) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court did not deal with Sub-

section 4 of Section 15 and its proviso and therefore, the said judgment

is not a hurdle for the petitioner.

5.

By placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of Andhra

Pradesh High Court in the case of Amoda Iron Steel Limited Vs.

Sneha Anlytics and Scientifics (Civil Revision No. 1261 of 2020

decided on 25.01.2022), Shri Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that the point involved in the instant case is dealt

with in-extenso and para Nos. 37 and 61 contain complete answer to

the question involved. In the light of aforesaid, the learned Commercial

Court has committed an error of law in closing the right of filing

written statement by treating it to be barred by time.

Stand of Respondent :

6.

Sounding a Contra note, Shri Pramdendra Singh Thakur, learned

counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that in the teeth of Order VIII

4

Rule 1 CPC, no fault can be found in the impugned order of Court

below. Similarly, merely because application under order VII Rule 11

CPC of petitioner was pending, it cannot be a ground to seek extension

of time for filing written statement.

7.

Faced with this, Shri Maheshwari, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that this point relating to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is

no more res integra and the same has been dealt in para-61 of the

judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Amoda Iron

Steel Limited (supra).

8.

Parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.

9.

We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

Findings :

10.

Before dealing with rival contentions advanced at the Bar, it is

apposite to quote relevant portion of Section 15 of the Commercial

Courts Act, 2015 :-

“15. Transfer of pending cases :-

(1) ……………………

(2)

……………………

(3) ……………………

(4) The Commercial Division or Commercial Court, as the

case may be, may hold case management hearings in

respect of such transferred suit or application in order

to prescribe new timelines or issue such