Skip to main content
Court Order

Order 6

CNR DLNT01013040202517 Oct 2026
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Order 6 · 17 Oct 2026 · CNR DLNT010130402025

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 9 CS (COMM.)/658/2025
DLNT010130402025
SRO OVERSEAS PVT LTD
Vs.
SHREE METAL
17.10.2026
Present: Sh. Prateek Mehta, Sh. Vivek Kumar, Eklavya Bahl,
Ld. Counsels for plaintiff.
Sh. Aditya Dhankar, Ld. Counsel for defendant
Today the matter is listed for report of the LC. It is
submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff that two witnesses have
already been examined.
Plaintiff has also moved an application u/o XVI Rule
2 r/w Section 151 CPC for summoning of the witnesses.
Heard. In view of the submissions made by Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff, application is allowed. Let witnesses
mentioned in the application be summoned on PF and diet
money.
Defendant has moved an application u/o 9 Rule 7
CPC seeking recalling of order dated 15.07.2026 vide which his
right to file written statement was closed.
It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that
defendant was served on 10.04.2026 and on 29.05.2026 counsel
for the defendant appeared before this Court and sought time to
file Written statement. However, on subsequent date i.e. 15.07.26
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
none appeared on behalf of defendant as the counsel engaged by
the defendant expressed his inability to continue with the matter
and rescued himself from the case. It is submitted that non-
appearance on behalf of the defendant on 15.07.2026 was wholly
inadvertent. It is further submitted that old senior clerk engaged
with the present counsel left the office without completing the
proper hand over of the diary and cause list work omitting the
present case from the attention of the counsel. It is submitted that
statutory outer period of 120 days has not yet expired and
therefore order dated 15.07.2026 be recalled and the Written
statement of the defendant be taken on record.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has vehemently objected to
the application and argued that no cause much less substantial
cause has been shown by the defendant to recall the said order.
I have heard the arguments and gone through the
record.
This Court is conscious that this is a commercial suit
and is distinguishable from ordinary civil suit and therefore more
flexible approach to the time limit for filing the Written statement
in ordinary suit and condonation of delay in filing the same,
cannot be automatically applied to commercial suit governed by
the stricter statutory regime.
The reasons given in the application for recalling
order dated 15.07.2026 by the defendant are not plausible and
lacking in material particulars. The defendant has not given any
reason as to under what circumstances the earlier counsel
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
engaged by the defendant left the case or what action has been
taken against him. The defendant has also failed to explain as to
on which date present counsel was engaged by the defendant.
Matter has already proceeded further and evidence of two
witnesses as noted above have already been recorded. The
plaintiff will get prejudiced if the aforesaid order is recalled. In
view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
application for recalling order dated 15.07.2026 is dismissed.
Consequently, application for condonation of delay in filing the
Written statement is also dismissed.
The defendant has also moved an application u/o 7
Rule 10 and 10 A CPC seeking return of the plaint on the ground
of lacking of territorial jurisdiction.
I have heard the arguments and gone through the
record.
The plaintiff in his para No. 15 of its plaint has
specifically stated that plaintiff is doing business from its
registered office at Shahbad Daulat Pur, Delhi and defendant
approached the plaintiff at the aforesaid address and thereafter,
plaintiff supplied the goods from the aforesaid address. There is
no material on record to controvert the aforesaid assertion of the
plaintiff at this stage. In view of the aforesaid facts, the
application has no substance and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
Put up for report of LC on 29.01.2027.
(Mohd. Farrukh )
District Judge (Commercial)-02
North District, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/17.10.2026
-- 4 of 4 --

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.