M/S Jeet Engineering Works Sole Proprietorship through Its Sole Proprietor Kanta Pachnanda Vs M/S Doon Trading Co. Sole Proprietorship through Its Sole Proprietor Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dudani

¶1

$~47

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 12^th February, 2026

¶3

- CM(M) 295/2026 & CM APPL. 7948/2026 M/S JEET ENGINEERING WORKS SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR KANTA PACHNANDA

¶4

.....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari and Mr. Radhey Sham, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

M/S DOON TRADING CO. SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR SH. RAJESH KUMAR DUDANI

¶8

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Mr. Akshay Chandra, Mr. Prem Nath Upadhyay and Ms. Vipasana Bubna, Advocates.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

¶10

ORDER (Oral)

¶11

Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.

¶12

This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.

¶13

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 05^th July, 2024 passed by the learned Trial Court in C.S. (COMM) No. 598/2023 , whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement has been dismissed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondent appears on advance notice and accepts notice.

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

CM(M) 295/2026

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:1 3.02.2026 11:14:13

¶19

The matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

Heard. Record perused.

¶21

The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 05^th July, 2024 reads as follows:

¶22

“Thus, perusal of file it is amply clear that the defendant was served through speed post on 09.08.2023 and through ordinary process on 10.08.2023. The defendant has filed the written statement on 14.12.2023. As such, the written statement was filed by the defendant on 126^th day from the date of service of defendant. Therefore, defendant has filed written statement beyond the period of 120 days. The written statement is required to be filed within statutory period of 30 days, however, same can be exetended for a period upto 120 days with the permission of the court. However, in the instant matter, the defendant has filed the written statement on 126^th day from the date of service i.e. beyond 120 days. As such, in these circumstance, the written statement of the defendant cannot be taken on record and above application for condonation of delay in filing written statement is dismissed.”

¶23

The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 bringing in their wake certain amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶24

In Order 8 Rule 1, a new proviso was substituted as follows:

¶25

“Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

CM(M) 295/2026

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:1 3.02.2026 11:14:13

¶30

one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.”

¶31

From the aforesaid proviso, it is clear that beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court has no further power to extend the time beyond this period of 120 days.

¶32

From the record, it is evident that the petitioner/defendant was served through speed post on 09^th August, 2023 and through ordinary process on 10^th August, 2023. The written statement has been filed by the petitioner/defendant on 14^th December, 2023, i.e., beyond the statutory period of 120 days. Since the petitioner has filed the written statement after the expiry of the statutory period of 120 days, the court has no further power to extend the time beyond this period of 120 days. Accordingly, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, as the same has been passed in accordance with law and it is upheld.

¶33

The petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶34

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J

¶35

FEBRUARY 12, 2026 / v/abk

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

CM(M) 295/2026

¶38

Page 3 of 3

¶39

Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:1 3.02.2026 11:14:13

M/S Jeet Engineering Works Sole Proprietorship through Its Sole Proprietor Kanta Pachnanda v. M/S Doon Trading Co. Sole Proprietorship through Its Sole Proprietor Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dudani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jeet Engineering Works Sole Proprietorship through Its Sole Proprietor Kanta Pachnanda v. M/S Doon Trading Co. Sole Proprietorship through Its Sole Proprietor Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dudani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Ghosh Vs Prem Chand Chauhan & Ors.

Sh Rakesh Kumar Nanda Deceased through His Wife Ms Lovely Nanda Vs Sh Jitender Singh

Mahendari & Anr. Vs Raj Bala & Anr.

M/S Bhargava Finance & Leasing Co. Vs M/S Das Innovators Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Bharat Bhushan Kalra Vs Sanjit

Km Mahak Vs Deepika Gautam

Sapna Goyal Vs Vivek Girish Dubey & Anr.

M/S Comtech Espirit (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs Neelamani Sharma & Ors.

Sunita Ghosh Vs Prem Chand Chauhan & Ors.

Sh Rakesh Kumar Nanda Deceased through His Wife Ms Lovely Nanda Vs Sh Jitender Singh

Mahendari & Anr. Vs Raj Bala & Anr.

Kamlesh Sadana Vs Ramesh Kumar

Sudesh Kumar Bhasin Since Deceased through Lrs Vs Shyam Setia and Ors.

Kapil Vs Pawan Kumar