Defense is struck off for failure to file written statement or seek extension within mandatory timelines.

The petitioner (defendant) challenged an order dated July 19, 2022, passed by the Trial Court in a commercial suit [CS (COMM) 284/2022], which struck off the petitioner’s defense for failure to file a written statement

The petitioner was served with summons via email on March 23, 2022

Despite service, the petitioner failed to appear on April 28, 2022, and May 27, 2022

On July 19, 2022, the petitioner’s counsel appeared and filed a vakalatnama but did not file the written statement or an application for extension of time

The petitioner contended that the delay was due to the non-supply of the plaint and annexures

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in striking off the petitioner’s defense under the timelines mandated by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015

2. Whether the petitioner's plea regarding the non-supply of the plaint and annexures was a valid ground for the delay or a mere afterthought

The court applied Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015

The proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 stipulates that a defendant must file a written statement within 30 days of service, extendable to a maximum of 120 days upon the court recording reasons in writing and payment of costs

On the expiry of 120 days from the date of service, the defendant forfeits the right to file the written statement, and the court is prohibited from taking it on record

The High Court observed that the petitioner was served on March 23, 2022, but remained unrepresented during two subsequent hearings

Although the petitioner’s counsel appeared on July 19, 2022, the court noted that no plea regarding the non-supply of the plaint or annexures was raised at that time

The court determined that this defense was an "afterthought," as it was only raised after the Trial Court had already struck off the defense

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the petitioner failed to file the written statement within the initial 30-day period and neglected to move any application for an extension of time

By applying the mandatory timelines of the Commercial Courts Act to these facts, the court found that the statutory period had elapsed without compliance, justifying the Trial Court’s decision

The court found the petition to be devoid of merit and upheld the striking off of the petitioner’s defense

The petition and all pending applications were dismissed