Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 15
CS (COMM.) 473/25
Shiv Bhola Filaments Private Limited Vs. Ramesh goel
23.02.2026
Present: Ms.Seema Gupta, ld. counsel for plaintiff.
Ms.Ayushi Kapoor, ld. counsel for defendant.
Perusal of the record shows that the defendant was served
with the E-mode of service and put appearance on 06.09.2025.
WS was not filed on 10.12.2025. Today physical copy of WS has
been filed. It is submitted by counsel for defendant that e-filing
of WS was done on 03.01.2026.
WS has not been signed on each page by the defendant.
An application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC has been moved
seeking condonation in filing of WS. Copy of WS along with
application supplied to counsel for plaintiff.
I have heard the submissions on the application. It is
mentioned in the application that defendant was served with the
summons on 06.09.2025 and period of limitation is to be
reckoned from that day and 30 days come to an end by
06.10.2025. It is submitted that WS could not be filed as
defendant discontinued his business and entire record of the
defendant got damaged due to water logging. It is stated that
there is delay of around 85 days in filing of WS since the
expiring of initial 30 days of filing of WS.
Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the application on
the ground that WS is not complete in all aspects as per
Commercial Court Act and rules framed thereunder as it is not
signed on each page. Moreover there is no explanation for each
particular day for delay in filing of WS. It is submitted that mere
-- 1 of 2 --
stating that defendant has discontinued the business and there
was some water logging, is a vague and general plea taken.
Having considered the submissions at bar, taking note of
the conduct of the defendant in putting appearance and thereafter
not filing the WS within initial 30 days and not even moving
application by then. WS has been filed almost after 115 days of
service of summons. Plea that the business was discontinued or
there was any water logging in the office of defendant, is not
supported by any documentary evidence. Therefore WS though
for the purpose of fair trial and enabling the defendant to contest
the matter on record, is allowed to be taken on record subject to
cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by defendant.
Subject to filing of the cost, put up this case for replication,
affidavit of admission/denial to the documents of defendant and
framing of issues on 07.04.2026.
(Shailender Malik )
District Judge (Commercial)-02
North District, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/23.02.2026
-- 2 of 2 --