1) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties. Records and proceedings of the learned Trial Court were called for perusal vide order dated 22.12.2025.

2) The present petition is filed by the original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 in Commercial Suit No.2 of 2019 in order to challenge orders dated 15.09.2022, passed by the learned District Judge-9 on applications at Exhibit Nos. 59 and 70 in Commercial Suit No.2 of 2019. The respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 5 are original Defendant Nos.5,7,8 and 9 respectively. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as “plaintiff” and “defendants”.

3) The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of amount against defendant Nos.1 to 6, being Special Civil Suit No.8606 of 2018. Defendant Nos.7 to 9 are arrayed as proper parties to the suit, against whom decree for recovery of money is not sought. Upon being served with the suit summons, defendant Nos.1 to 6 entered appearance in the matter on 18.07.2018. The defendant Nos.1 to 6 filed application dated 18.07.2018 seeking time to file written statement which was allowed by the learned Civil Court.

4) The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Similar application was filed by defendant Nos.3,4 and 6. The said applications are marked as Exhibit Nos.30 and 33. Both these applications were filed on 07.08.2018. Perusal of the applications will demonstrate that the said defendants contended that the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the dispute raised by the plaintiff was a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

5) The learned Civil Court passed order dated 28.01.2019, transferring the suit to Commercial Court. The parties were directed to appear before the Commercial Court on 11.02.2019. The present petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 did not file their written statement in the civil suit while the suit was pending before the learned Civil Court. It will be pertinent to mention that the learned Civil Court had also not passed any order to proceed without written statement against the defendants.

6) In view of the order dated 28.01.2019, the matter was made over to the learned Commercial Court. The case record was received on 25.02.2019. On 27.02.2019, the present petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 filed application seeking time to file written statement, which was allowed by the learned Commercial Court by passing one word order, “Granted”. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 did not file their written statement. In such circumstances, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed application dated 26.06.2019 vide Exhibit No. 59 for passing order to proceed without written statement against defendant Nos.1 to 6. Thereafter, the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 filed application dated 26.10.2021 vide Exhibit No. 70, seeking permission to file written statement. The learned Commercial Court passed two separate orders on 15.09.2022 by virtue of which the application at Exhibit No.59 filed by the plaintiff was allowed and suit was ordered to proceed against defendant Nos.1 to 6 without their written statement and the application filed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 for permission to file written statement at Exhibit No.70 was rejected.

7) The learned Commercial Court has observed that Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the CPC”), is amended in its application to commercial suits as a consequence of which, right to file written statement stands forfeited if the same is not filed within a period of 120 days from the date of service of suit summons. The learned Commercial Court has held that period of 120 days from date of service of suit summons had admittedly lapsed and therefore, right to file written statement stood forfeited. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 have filed the present petition, assailing the said orders.

8) Mr. Gopal Sawal, learned Advocate for the petitioners, contends that the outer limit of 120 days for filing written statement is not applicable to a suit which is filed before a Civil Court and is thereafter, transferred to a Commercial Court. He draws attention to Section 15(4) of the Commercial Courts Acts, 2015, and contends that, since the suit was transferred from a Civil Court to a Commercial Court, it was necessary for the learned Commercial Court to fix a time frame for filing of written statement and since such a time frame was not fixed by the learned Commercial Court, right to file written statement was not forfeited. He argues that the learned Civil Court had not passed order to proceed without written statement and therefore, stage of filing written statement was not crossed over before transfer of the suit to Commercial Court.

9) Per contra, Mr. Anand Deshpande, learned Advocate for respondent No.1/plaintiff contends that it is not necessary for a Commercial Court to prescribe new timelines after a suit transferred to it by a Civil Court. He further contends that provisions of Order V Rule 1 and Order VIII Rules 1 and 10 as amended in relation to Commercial Courts will clearly reveal that time for filing written statement cannot be granted beyond period of 120 days. The learned Advocate contends that even if it is assumed that it was necessary for the Commercial Court to frame a fresh timeline, it is obvious that the timeline to be prescribed could not be beyond a period of 120 days from the date of service of suit summons. He contends that application at Exhibit No.70 for permission to file written statement is filed after a period of 120 days from 28.01.2019 i.e. the date of order of transfer of suit from Civil Court to Commercial Court, 11.02.2019 i.e. date given for appearance before Commercial Court and also 27.02.2019 i.e. first date of appearance of parties before Commercial Court after record and proceedings were received from the Civil Court. The learned Advocate therefore, contends that the learned Commercial Court has rightly rejected the application for permission to file written statement filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 and has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 for proceeding without written statement of the said defendants. He has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., reported in AIR 2019 SC 2691.

10) The contention of the learned Advocate for petitioners is that, since such a timeline is not prescribed by the learned Commercial Court, application seeking permission to file written statement could not have been rejected. The learned Advocate contends that although the provision uses the word “may”, the provision is mandatory.

11) The learned Advocate places reliance on the following decisions in support of his contention.

                   i) 2022 SCC Online AP 136 (Amoda Iron Steel Ltd. Vs. Sneha Anlytics and Scientifics)

                   ii) 2023 SCC Online MP 5196 (Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh Kiledar Construction Pvt. Ltd.)

                   iii) 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2450 (India Power Corporation Ltd., (IPCL) Vs. Jefferies India Private Limited and Another.

12) In all these cases, suits were filed before the Civil Court prior to the establishment of Commercial Division/Commercial Court and after the establishment of the Commercial Division/Commercial Court, the suits came to be transferred to the Commercial Court. In this context, issue arose in these cases as to whether the outer limit of 120 days prescribed under Order V Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, as they are applicable to Commercial Courts, will be applicable to such a suit which was filed before Civil Court and subsequently transferred to Commercial Court after establishment of Commercial Division/Commercial Court. Referring to proviso to Section 15(4) of the Commercial Courts Act, the judgments hold that outer limit of 120 days will not be attracted to such suits and that in view of proviso to Section 15(4) of the Commercial Courts Act, the Commercial Court will have jurisdiction to fix appropriate timeline for filing of written statement, which can be for a period exceeding 120 days from the date of service of summons. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions Mr. Sawal vehemently contends that since appropriate order fixing time frame for filing of written statement is not passed by the learned Commercial Court after transfer of the suit from Civil Court, question of passing order to proceed without written statement did not arise.

13) It is necessary to examine as to whether Section 15(4) will be applicable to the facts of the present case. Section 15(4) of the Act is applicable to such suits which are transferred to a Commercial Court under Section 15(2) of the Act. Section 15(2) of the Act is applicable only to suits which are pending on the date of establishment of Commercial Court. Suits which are filed after the establishment of Commercial Courts are not governed by Section 15(2). Therefore, Section 15(4) and proviso thereto will not be applicable to suits which are filed before a Civil Court after commencement of Commercial Courts Act and the establishment of Commercial Court and are transferred to Commercial Court. Reliance, in this regard, can be placed on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Peoples Empowerment Group Vs. Sachin Sonwane and ors, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 755. In the said case, a suit was filed before the Civil Court for recovery of money on 30.08.2016. The suit was ordered to be transferred to the Commercial Court vide order dated 20.10.2016. The defendants appeared before the Commercial Court on 27.01.2017 in response to summons issued by the Commercial Court. On 06.07.2017, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed application for condonation of delay in filing written statement. In the meantime, the learned Commercial Court remitted the matter back to the learned Civil Court to reconsider as to whether the subject matter of the suit fell within jurisdiction of Commercial Court. Vide order dated 17.04.2019, the learned Civil Court held that the subject matter of the suit fell within the jurisdiction of a Commercial Court. Thereafter, the defendants filed an application inter alia praying to stipulate a timeline for filing of written statement and to accept written statement filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 alongwith application dated 06.07.2017 on record. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Trial Court. In this context, a dispute arose as to whether the suit was transferred under Section 15(2) of the Act and further as to whether Section 15(4) will be applicable to such a suit. This Court negated the contention of the defendants that the suit was transferred under Section 15(2) and that Section 15(4) was applicable to the suit. Relevant observations of this Court in paragraphs 19 and 22 of the judgment are reproduced for ready reference:-

                   “19.This Court finds it difficult to accede to the submission of Mr. Panchpor that on account of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge on 17th April, 2019, there was a transfer of the suit to the Commercial Court and, therefore, the provision of Section 15(4) are attracted. On a plain reading of Section 15(2), it becomes abundantly clear that the said provision applies to the suits which were pending on the date of the enforcement of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Consequently, the issue of prescription of new timeline or further directions under subsection (4) of Section 15 would arise only in the suits which were transferred in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

                   22. A useful reference can also be made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Colonial Life Insurance Company (Trinidad) Ltd.3 wherein while determining the question as to “whether the mandatory timeline of 120 days in filing a written statement in a commercial suit is applicable to suits which were filed prior to the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and which came to be transferred as commercial suits to be heard by the Commercial Division of the High Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act”, the Division Bench construed the scope and import of the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act and emphasised that it applies to pending suits. The following observations in paragraph 13 are material and hence extracted below:

                   “13 Chapter V of the Commercial Courts Act, dealing with the subject, is entitled “Transfer of pending suits”. Subsection (1) of Section 15 provides for compulsory transfer of all suits and applications including applications under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relating to commercial disputes of specified pending in a High Court where a Commercial Division has been constituted, to such commercial division. The condition for application of this provision is “pendency” of a suit or application. The provisions which follow [Sub-sections (2) to (5)] deal with such pending suits transferred to the commercial division. There is no scope for distinguishing between these suits on the basis of service or want of service of writ o summons. Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 15 apply to all commercial suits irrespective of the date of service of writ of summons.”

14) Since proviso to Section 15(4) is not applicable, the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that it was necessary for the learned Commercial Court to fix a fresh time frame for filing of written statement is liable to be rejected. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that since the Commercial Court did not fix any time frame for filing written statement, application at Exhibit No.70 filed by the petitioners (ori. defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and 6) should have been allowed, cannot be accepted.

15) It will now be appropriate to deal with judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Process Equipments and Systems Pvt. Ltd., and Ors. Vs. Honest Derivatives Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 187. In the said case, suit for recovery of damages was filed before the Civil Court in the month of December 2017. Suit summons were served on the defendant on 16.02.2018. An order to proceed without written statement was passed on 03.07.2018. After the order to proceed without written statement was passed the Court of District Judge was designated as a Commercial Court on 11.08.2018 and the suit was accordingly transferred to a Commercial Court. After the suit was transferred to Commercial Court the defendant filed application to set aside “no written statement” order. The said application came to be rejected vide order dated 11.04.2019. The learned Commercial Court had rejected the application for recalling “no written statement’ order placing reliance on Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act. The said order was challenged by the defendant initially before the High Court which confirmed the said order and accordingly and the matter reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal on the ground that the period of 120 days for filing written statement had expired while the suit was pending before the Civil Court to which Order VIII Rule 1 as amended by Commercial Courts Act was not applicable. Placing reliance on judgment in the matter of Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344, it is held that Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, in its application to Civil Court is directory and not mandatory. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has thereafter referred to its judgment in the matter of SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. K. S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Ltd and Others reported in (2019) 12 SCC 210 and has held that the outer limit of 120 days which is applicable to a suit which is instituted before Commercial Court cannot be applied to a suit which is filed before a normal Civil Court and then transferred to Commercial Court. The ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that if a “no written statement” order is passed by a Civil Court and thereafter the suit is transferred to Commercial Court, an application for setting aside “no written statement” order passed by the Civil Court will have to be dealt with in the light of provisions of Order V and Order VIII of CPC as they are applicable to a suit before a Civil Court and that the provisions of Order V Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC as amended by Commercial Courts Act will not be applicable. Ultimately, in the facts of the said case where suit was filed for damages, the Hon’ble Supreme Court deemed it appropriate to grant permission to the defendant (appellant before the Supreme Court) to file written statement.

16) Mr. Anand Deshpande, learned Advocate for the respondent/plaintiff, contends that ratio of Raj Process Equipments and Systems Pvt. Ltd., (supra) cannot be applied to the present case, since in the said case the suit was filed before the Civil Court prior to the establishment of Commercial Court and in the present case the suit is filed before the Civil Court after establishment of Commercial Court. He contends that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is delivered in a case covered by Section 15(2) and therefore in the said case Section 15(4) was applicable. He further contends that since Section 15(4) is not applicable the ratio of judgment in the case of Raj Process Equipments and Systems Pvt. Ltd., (supra) will not be applicable to the present case.

17) In the facts of the present case, the contents of the application at Exhibit 17, even if they are taken on their face value, are grossly insufficient to permit the petitioners to file written statement even in a non-commercial suit before Civil Court. Therefore, even if the application filed by the petitioners is considered in the light of unamended provisions of Order V Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, the petitioners will not be entitled to leave to file written statement. Therefore, the argument for distinguishing the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Process Equipments and Systems Pvt. Ltd., (supra) need not be dealt with in the facts of the present case.

18) In this regard, it will be appropriate to refer to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. N. Jadi & Brothers and ors Vs. Subhashchandra, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 420. Although the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC which prescribes outer limit of 90 days for filing written statement is directory and not mandatory, it is unequivocally laid down that in order to seek permission to file written statement after 90 days, defendant must make out an exceptional case. It is held that normally a defendant must file his written statement within a period of 30 days from the date of service of suit summons. It is further held that the learned Civil Court can extend the period for filing written statement up to 90 days in case of difficulty in filing written statement within a period of 30 days. It is thereafter held that the period of 90 days stipulated under Order VIII Rule 1 cannot be held to be mandatory and that in appropriate case where extraordinary circumstances are made out, filing of written statement can be permitted even upon period of 90 days. Relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are as under:-

                   14. It is true that procedure is the handmaid of justice. The court must always be anxious to do justice and to prevent victories by way of technical knockouts. But how far that concept can be stretched in the context of the amendments brought to the Code and in the light of the mischief that was sought to be averted is a question that has to be seriously considered. I am conscious that I was a party to the decision in Kallash v. Nanhku which held that the provision was directory and not mandatory. But there could be situations where even a procedural provision could be construed as mandatory, no doubt retaining a power in the court, in an appropriate case, to exercise a jurisdiction to take out the rigour of that provision or to mitigate genuine hardship. It was in that context that in Kailash v. Nanhku it was stated that the extension of time beyond 90 days was not automatic and that the court, for reasons to be recorded, had to be satisfied that there was sufficient justification for departing from the time-limit fixed by the Code and the power inhering in the court in terms of Section 148 of the Code. Kailash is no authority for receiving written statements, after the expiry of the period permitted by law, in a routine manner.

                   15. A dispensation that makes Order 8 Rule 1 directory, leaving it to the courts to extend the time indiscriminately would tend to defeat the object sought to be achieved by the amendments to the Code. It is, therefore, necessary to emphasise that the grant of extension of time beyond 30 days is not automatic, that it should be exercised with caution and for adequate reasons and that an extension of time beyond 90 days of the service of summons must be granted only based on a clear satisfaction of the justification for granting such extension, the court being conscious of the fact that even the power of the court for extension inhering in Section 148 of the Code, has also been restricted by the legislature. It would be proper to encourage the belief in litigants that the imperative of Order 8 Rule 1 must be adhered to and that only in rare and exceptional cases, will the breach thereof will be condoned. Such an approach by courts alone can carry forward the legislative intent of avoiding delays or at least in curtailing the delays in the disposal of suits filed in courts. The lament of Lord Denning in Allen v. Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons that law's delays have been intolerable and last so long as to turn justice sour, is true of our legal system as well. Should that state of affairs continue for all times?

19) In the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344, while holding that the outer limit specified under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is directory in nature, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also cautioned that time cannot be extended as a matter of course and time beyond 90 days can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. Relevant observations in paragraph 21 of the judgment are extracted herein-below:-

                   21. “…..Clearly, therefore, the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory. Having said so, we wish to make it clear that the order extending time to file written statement cannot be made in routine. The time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. While extending time, it has to be borne in mind that the legislature has fixed the upper time-limit of 90 days. The discretion of the court to extend the time shall not be so frequently and routinely exercised so as to nullify the period fixed by Order 8 Rule 1.

20) In the case of Atcom Technologies Ltd. Vs. Y. A. Chunawala and Company and ors., reported in (2018) 6 SCC 639 delay of around 5 years in filing written statement was condoned by the order impugned. The High Court found that there was a delay of around 7 years in service of suit summons and, therefore, found it appropriate to condone the delay in filing written statement by imposing cost of Rs.5,00,000/-. The matter went before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Placing reliance on judgment in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the said order permitting the filing of written statement.

21) In the case of Desh Raj Vs. Balkishan, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 708, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that although Order VII Rule 1 is directory, it cannot give a free hand to the defendant to file written statement at his sweet will. It is held that, in order to seek leave to file written statement beyond 90 days, case of proactive diligence coupled with extreme hardship should be made out. It will be pertinent to mention that although the judgment considers precedents pertaining to general civil suits and commercial civil suits, perusal of paragraph 14 of the judgment will disclose that the suit was considered to be of non-commercial nature and right to file written statement was dealt with in the light of provisions of CPC as they are applicable to non- commercial civil suits. It will be pertinent to mention here that delay in filing written statement in the said case was of 95 days over and above the outer limit of 90 days. Relevant observations in paragraph 15 are quoted herein-below for ready reference :-

                   “15. However, it would be gainsaid that although the unamended Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory, it cannot be interpreted to bestow a free hand to on any litigant or lawyer to file written statement at their own sweet will and/or to prolong the lis. The legislative objective behind prescription of timelines under CPC must be given due weightage so that the disputes are resolved in a time-bound manner. Inherent discretion of courts, like the ability to condone delays under Order 8 Rule 1 is a fairly defined concept and its contours have been shaped through judicial decisions over the ages. Illustratively, extreme hardship or delays occurring due to factors beyond control of parties despite proactive diligence, may be just and equitable instances for condonation of delay.”

22) Perusal of the application at Exhibit No.70 will demonstrate that the defendants have stated that father of defendant Nos.3 and 4 is an old person who was suffering from diabetes and was diagnosed with severe heart ailments in the year 2017 and that he needs constant care and attention. It is averred that in December 2019 when he was at Dubai on a business trip he fell ill and was admitted in a hospital at Dubai. It is stated that defendant Nos.3 and 4 had rushed to Dubai and stayed there with their father in view of his medical condition. It is stated that the defendants were also facing serious financial hardship due to decline in business. Lastly, it is stated that due to nationwide lockdown imposed w.e.f. 15.03.2020 on account of Covid-19 pandemic, the defendants were unable to file their written statement on record.

23) As regards Covid-19 restrictions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ordered exclusion of period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for the purpose of computation of limitation in all judicial proceedings. The application seeking permission to file the written statement is filed on 26.10.2021, during this period and therefore delay up to 14.03.2020 only needs to be considered.

24) Perusal of the medical papers filed on record will indicate that father of defendant Nos.3 and 4 was admitted at Asian Heart Institute on 13.02.2017 on account of heart ailment and was granted discharge on 24.02.2017. He was advised bed rest for a period of 3 months. This period is prior to the institution of suit.

25) It appears from the contents of paragraph 5 of the application that the father had been to Dubai on a business trip in December 2019. Perusal of medical report dated 29.12.2019 issued by Harley International Medical Clinic L.L.C will indicate that he complained of discomfort in chest and had visited the hospital on his own. His ECG was found to be satisfactory by the Doctor and the vital parameters were also found to be stable, however the doctor advised him to take the rest for few weeks and to continue with medications prescribed by his cardiologist. The petitioners have filed medical certificate dated 05.01.2020 issued by a General Practitioner at Saudi German Hospitals Group at Dubai, who had conducted his neuro examination since he was complaining of dizziness. A medical prescription dated 08.01.2020 is also filed on record. The period during which father of defendant Nos.3 and 4 was unwell at Dubai is from 29.12.2019 to January 2020.

26) His medical condition prior to December 2019 appears to be alright. He had traveled to Dubai on a business trip in December 2019. The outer limit of 90 days for filing written statement, if the period is computed from 18.07.2018 i.e. date of appearance before Civil Court had expired on 16.10.2018 itself. If this period is computed from the date of appearance before the Commercial Court, the said period had expired on 28.05.2019 itself. It will be pertinent to mention that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 had also filed application dated 26.06.2019, inter alia praying for passing “no written statement” order against defendants. Despite this, the application is filed on 26.10.2021.

27) Perusal of the application will demonstrate that there is no plausible explanation for failure to file written statement initially before the Civil Court and thereafter even before the Commercial Court. The application for filing written statement is after the period of 39 months from the date of appearance before the Civil Court and 32 months from the date of appearance before the Commercial Court. Even if period is computed only till March 2020, before the imposition of Covid-19 restrictions, it is clear that the delay is of around 17 months from the date on which period of 90 days for filing written statement had expired. If the period is computed from outer limit of 120 days from date of appearance before learned Commercial Court and commencement of Covid-19 restrictions the delay will be of around 8 months.

28) The petitioners have also stated that written statement could not be filed due to financial difficulties. However, there is no further elaboration regarding this ground. The petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 are persons of business background. The father of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 had been to Dubai on a business trip while the suit was pending, as is apparent from contents of the application. This is an indicator of financial condition of family of petitioner Nos.3 and 4. It is difficult to digest that written statement could not be filed due to financial constraints.

29) Except for a short period from 29.12.2019 till first or second week of January 2020, there was no difficulty in filing written statement, even if the contents of the application at Exhibit No.70 are taken on its face value.

30) The conduct of petitioners demonstrates laxity on their part in contesting the suit. The petitioners have not taken legal proceedings initiated against them seriously. The attitude of the petitioners is recalcitrant. The suit is filed in the year 2018 and application for permission to file written statement was filed on 26.10.2021 that too when the respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed an application to proceed against the petitioners/defendants without written statement on 26.06.2019. Perusal of the application demonstrates that no good reason is cited for seeking leave to file written statement after an inordinately long period mentioned above.

31) In the considered opinion of this Court, the explanation offered by the petitioners (defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6) is not sufficient to condone the delay and to accept the written statement on record, even according to provisions of CPC as are applicable to a civil suit filed before the Civil Court.

32) In view of the reasons recorded above, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Rule is accordingly discharged by dismissing the petition.