ORDER

The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P/1 dated 15.12.2023 whereby the trial court has closed the right of the present petitioner-defendant to file written statement.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit has been filed against the present petitioner by the present respondent before the Commercial Court Rewa. It is stated that the present petitioner-defendant is located at Kolkata (West Bengal) while the plaintiff- respondent is located at Satna (M.P.). It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the two places are about 1000 kms. apart. The service of summons to the present petitioner was effected on 19.09.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner appeared before the Commercial Court on 31.10.2023 and sought 35 days time to submit written statement. The Court granted time for filing written statement and posted that case for that purpose on 07.12.2023. On 07.12.2023, the present petitioner filed an application before the Commercial court under Order 8 Rule 1 read with order 17 rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. A copy of the said application is on record as Annexure P/4. By pointing out the said application Annexure P/4, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 31.10.2023, the petitioner-defendant had prayed 35 days time to file written statement and the court has fixed the case for that purpose on 07.12.2023. However, as the defendant is located at Kolkata (W.B.) and is not a local person-entity, hence service of out-station counsel has been taken by the petitioner. Due to distance between two places time is getting consumed to send the necessary documents etc., to Rewa for the purpose of preparation of written statement. Due to huge distance between two places further 28 days time was sought for filing written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the court has rejected the application vide order dated 15.12.2023 by recording that distance between two places is not a valid ground to extend the time period for filing written statement because in today's digital world, any document can be transmitted digitally from one place to another. Thus, the request of the defendant-petitioner seeking further time to file written statement does not seem to be bona fide. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that transmission of documents is not the only requirement to file written statement. The documents have to be transmitted and thereafter, matter has to be consulted with the counsel on the basis of documents. Learned counsel has to study the documents and thereafter consult the party. Each one of these events and steps cannot be undertaken digitally. Due to sheer distance between two places the request for extension of time was bona fide. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the written statement was tendered before the Court on 14.12.2023 but the same was not taken on record.

3. It is also stated that the service of summons took place on 19.09.2023 and the complete set of documents was received on 31.10.2023. From the date of receipt of complete set of documents, the written statement was being filed within 45 days and even from the date of service of summons, the written statement was being filed prior to 90 days.

4. It is further submitted that the statutory mandate as per the amendment to Code of Civil Procedure carried out by the Commercial Courts Act 2015 contemplates that after expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons the right to file written statement is forfeited without any scope of relaxation. However, between the period of 30 days to 120 days discretion is with the Court to allow the defendant to file written statement for the reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such cost as the cost may deem fit. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the impugned order dated 15.12.2023 submits that the Commercial Court has not adverte