[2024:RJ-JP:52303]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16670/2024 Allen Classes, Through It's Proprietor Kommineni Surya Chandrashekhar, Address- 48/9/13, Budhil Park Lane Opp. Navayuga Near Hotel Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh- 530016 Also At- Flat No. 103, Main Road, Dwaraka Nagr, Vishakhapatnam- 53001.

----Petitioner Versus Allen Career Institute Private Ltd, Through It's Authorized Representative Mr. Paras Sharma Registered Office At - Sankalp, CP-6, Indra Vihar, Kota, Rajasthan-324005, Also At- 11 Samachar Jagat, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur- 302017.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Umang Gupta, Mr. Tarang Gupta &

Mr. Dheeraj Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

RESERVED ON December 18^th, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON January 03 ^rd , 2025 BY THE COURT

1. Instant civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by petitioner-defendant, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur, in Commercial Suit No.38/2024: Allen Career Institute Private Ltd. Vs. Allen Classes, whereby and whereunder, while dismissing application under Section 151 CPC filed by petitioner-defendant, his written statement, submitted on 11.07.2024 before the Commercial Court, has been declined to be taken on record, treating the same to be filed by the defendant after expiry of the upper time limit of 120 days, from service of summons of the commercial suit.

2. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the requisite court fees as per the relief claimed in the present commercial suit, was not paid by the respondent-plaintiff at the time of presentation of plaint on 25.01.2024, yet summon of such defective plaint, was issued by the Commercial Court to defendant, and when after service of summon & appearance of defendant, the deficiency of court fees was pointed out by the defendant, then and thereafter only, under the order of Commercial Court dated 20.03.2024, plaintiff made up the deficit court fees of Rs.5,02,125/- on 15.04.2024, which was taken on record, hence in such peculiar circumstances, defendant be given time to file written statement w.e.f. 15.04.2024, and the written statement submitted by the petitioner-defendant on 11.07.2024, be treated to be filed well within the statutory period of timeline of 120 days. Counsel for petitioner contends that the Commercial Court has committed grave illegality, perversity and jurisdictional error in treating the written statement of petitioner-defendant to be filed after expiry of the upper time limit of 120 days from date of service of summon and declining the same to take on record, which has resulted manifest injustice and irreparable loss to the petitioner. Hence, it has been prayed that impugned order warrants interference by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and after setting aside the impugned order, the written statement, already submitted by the petitioner-defendant before the Commercial Court on 11.07.2024, be ordered to be taken on record.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has repelled the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner-defendant, stating inter alia that the present commercial suit was filed by plaintiff on 25.01.2024, wherein after service of summon upon defendant, he put in appearance on 07.03.2024, hence the written statement, submitted on record on 11.07.2024 (i.e. after 124 days), has rightly been observed to be filed after expiry of the statutory outer time limit of 120 days from the date of service of summon and since the right of defendant to file written statement has been forfeited and the time limit of 120 days is not further extendable in the commercial nature of suit(s), therefore, the Commercial Court committed no error in declining to take the belated filed writt