Absence of Dues-Diligence and Unsubstantiated Allegations Against Counsel Preclude Condonation of Delay in Commercial Appeals.

The Respondent, a company dealing in architectural interior products, supplied goods to the Appellants (a proprietorship) against six invoices between February and May 2016

A legal notice for unpaid dues was issued on 09.01.2019, followed by a non-starter mediation report on 08.04.2019

The Respondent filed a recovery suit on 23.05.2019

The Appellants filed a written statement alleging the suit was time-barred and the goods were defective, but they later failed to appear during evidence

The Trial Court passed an ex-parte judgment and decree on 21.12.2022

The Appellants' subsequent application under Order IX Rule 13 to set aside the decree was dismissed on 05.07.2025

The present appeal was filed with a 1,000-day delay

Whether there was sufficient cause to condone the 1,000-day delay in filing the appeal

Whether the suit filed by the Respondent was barred by limitation

Whether the non-starter mediation report was valid under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act

Whether procedural defects, such as the absence of a Statement of Truth or signatures on every page, rendered the plaint non est

The court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the requirement of "sufficient cause" and "diligence" for condonation of delay

It followed Govt. of Maharashtra v. M/s Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors P Ltd. regarding strict timelines under the Commercial Courts Act

On merits, it clarified that Article 1 of the Limitation Act applies only to "mutual, open, and current accounts" involving reciprocal demands, whereas a simple buyer-seller relationship falls under the residual Article 113

It applied Bharath Skins Corporation v. Taneja Skins Company Pvt. Ltd. to determine that limitation in non-mutual running accounts triggers from the last payment or right to sue

Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act and Rule 3(2) of the CC Rules, 2018, were applied for mediation compliance

Section 29 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, was used to grant presumptive validity to public records like non-starter reports

Procedural curative principles were based on Vidyawati Gupta v. Bhakti Hari Nayak

The Court first refused to condone the 1,000-day delay, noting that the Appellants lacked diligence and their allegations against previous counsel were unsubstantiated

However, on merits, the Court found the suit within limitation.

While the Trial Court incorrectly applied Article 1 (finding a mutual account), this Court held that since it was a one-way buyer-seller debt, Article 113 applied

Limitation was triggered by the last payment on 17.05.2016, expiring on 17.05.2019; however, the period spent in pre-institution mediation (21.02.2019 to 08.04.2019) was excluded under the Section 12A proviso, making the 23.05.2019 filing timely

The Court rejected the fraud allegations regarding mediation, holding that the non-starter report prepared by a public servant carries high credibility

Finally, the Court held that the lack of signatures on every page or a Statement of Truth are curable procedural irregularities that do not invalidate a decree

On merits, the Court upheld the Trial Court's decree, holding that the suit was within limitation after excluding the mediation period

It further held that the Appellants failed to prove the goods were defective or that the invoices were fake

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the money decree of ₹8,34,336/- with 10% interest per annum