IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gourav Mehta . . . . Petitioner vs.

M/s D.P. Plaza & Anr. . . . . Respondents Reserved on: March 27, 2026 Pronounced on: April 01, 2026 Pronounced fully/operative part : Fully * * * *

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued By:- Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate and Ms. Preeti Bansal, Advocate For the petitioners. DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated

21.02.2026 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, whereby the application moved by the plaintiff (respondent herein)under Section 15(3) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for placing on record the Statement of Truth has been allowed, and the application filed by the defendant (petitioner herein) under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed. 2. The factual matrix, as emerges on perusal of paper-book, is that the suit (Annexure P-1) in question was initially instituted in the year 2019 as a simplicitor suit for recovery before the Civil Court at Sirsa. Subsequently, upon enforcement of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act in the State of Haryana and in terms of administrative order of the District Judge, the suit came to be transferred to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, to be tried as a commercial dispute. During the course of proceedings, the parties were also referred to mediation, though the same did not yield any settlement.

3. At a later stage, the plaintiff moved an application (Annexure P-3) seeking permission to place on record the Statement of Truth in terms of Order VI Rule 15A CPC [wrongly mentioned as Section 15 (3) of the Commercial Courts Act], as applicable to commercial disputes. The said application came to be opposed by the defendant, inter alia, on the ground that the same had been filed with intention to fill in lacunae in the case.

4. The defendant also moved separate application (Annexure P-5) seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on account of alleged non-compliance of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.

5. The learned trial Court, however, allowed the application of the plaintiff, and dismissed the application of the defendant by way of impugned order, leading to the present revision petition.

6.1 Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the plaintiff had been granted more than twenty opportunities to lead rebuttal evidence and address arguments, yet no effort was made to comply with the mandatory requirement of filing the Statement of Truth. It is submitted that the application has been moved at a highly belated stage and is clearly an attempt to fill up lacunae. Reliance has been placed upon the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Raj Kumar Tulsian 2023 SCC Online Del 6058, to contend that permission to file Statement of Truth is not to be granted as a matter of course and depends upon the facts and stage of the proceedings. It is further argued that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that such belated compliance causes serious prejudice to the defendant and undermines the discipline envisaged under the Commercial Courts Act.

6.2 It is further the contention of Ld. Counsel that trial court committed grave error in dismissing the application of the defendant – petitioner for rejection of plaint, as pre-litigation mediation is now mandatory.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the principal issue which arises for consideration is whether the learned trial Court was justified in permitting the plaintiff to place on record the Statement of Truth at a belated stage, and whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

8. Order VI Rule 15A CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, mandates that pleadings be verified by a Statement of Truth. At the same