IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.01.2026 Yograjsinh Laljibhai Yadav ....Petitioner Versus M/s Eco Emission Xchange Private Limited ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Naresh Gopal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

The instant petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure P.12), passed by the Commercial Court, Gurugram, vide which the application filed by the petitioner-defendant, under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, for condoning the delay in filing the written statement, was dismissed and the defence was struck off.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that a suit for recovery of Rs.4,29,73,098/- was instituted by respondent-plaintiff against the petitioner-defendant (Annexure P.1), in the Commercial Court, Gurugram.

3. Pursuant to notice having been issued for 01.08.2022 vide order dated 01.07.2022, the petitioner-

defendant caused appearance on the said date. Since legible copies of the documents along with the plaint, had not been supplied to the petitioner-defendant, a request in this regard was made to the Court, which granted time to the respondent- plaintiff for the said purpose. The documents having been furnished on 22.10.2022, an application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, for condonation of delay in filing the written statement along with a copy of the written statement, was filed on 02.12.2022, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure P.12), leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

4. Notice of the revision petition was issued. No one caused appearance on behalf of the respondent, despite service.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Commercial Court, Gurugram, erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. While referring to the interlocutory orders passed by the Commercial Court, Gurugram, learned counsel has submitted that the time period of 120 days, as envisaged under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, pertaining to the Commercial Courts, would start running from the day, when the legible copies of the documents etc., were furnished. He submits that since legible copies were furnished on 07.10.2022 and 120 days from the said period had not expired, the Commercial Court, Gurugram, erred in dismissing the application and striking off the defence of the petitioner.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. A perusal of the interlocutory orders, annexed with the revision petition, show that the suit was instituted on 31.05.2022 before the Commercial Court, Gurugram. Since proper Court fee had not been affixed, time was granted upto 01.07.2022 for furnishing of the same. On 01.07.2022, the requisite Court fee stamp was affixed and notice was issued to the petitioner-defendant for 01.08.2022. The petitioner- defendant caused appearance through counsel on 01.08.2022 and prayed for some time to file written statement. The Court duly noticed that legible copies of the documents had not been furnished and an assurance was given by learned counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff that the needful would be done by the next date of hearing. The order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Commercial Court, Gurugram, reads as under:-

“Memo of appearance filed on behalf of defendant. Learned counsel appearing for defendant seeks time to file written statement and reply to application under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC as well as vakalatnama.

Be filed on 07.09.2022.

Legible copies of documents not furnished.

Learned counsel for plaintiff submits that needful shall be done by next date of hearing.

Said copies be filed on date fixed and be also supplied to counsel opposite.”

9. On the next date i.e. 07.09.2022, a statement was given by learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant