JUDGMENT : 1. There is one plaintiff in the main suit. Likewise, there is one defendant in the main suit. Sole defendant in the main suit is the applicant herein. Obviously, sole plaintiff in the main suit is the lone respondent herein. 2. Parties in this application are referred to by their respective ranks in the main suit for the sake of convenience and clarity. In other words, the lone applicant herein is referred to as defendant and the lone respondent in this application is referred to as plaintiff. 3. Main suit has been filed alleging infringement of Copyright. In this view of the matter, when this suit was first listed before this Commercial Division on 15.12.2017 vide proceedings dated 15.12.2017, I had expressed my intention to exercise jurisdiction over this suit after examining the plaint and hearing the counsel. As those proceedings are relevant, I deem it appropriate to extract the same. Proceedings dated 15.12.2017 reads as under: “Mrs. Aprajitha, learned counsel on record for the plaintiff, is before this Commercial Division. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the suit will qualify to be heard by this Commercial Division as it pertains alleged infringement of copy right. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel that in the light of Section 62(2) of the Copy Right Act, 1957, this Commercial Divisions will have jurisdiction to hear the suit under the first proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016), (hereinafter referred to as Act 4 of 2016). 3. I perused the suit and I am inclined to accept the submission. 4. However, it is made clear that the defendant, who is not before this Court today, chooses to appear and makes submissions on jurisdiction, the defendant will also be heard and suitable decision will be taken, if the defendant has anything contrary to say. 5. Be that as it may, I am informed that the Interlocutory Applications taken out by the plaintiff have been allowed in the instant suit and I am also informed that there is no inter-court appeal. 6. Therefore, having expressed the intention to exercise jurisdiction over this suit, I now turn to the stage of the suit. 7. The defendant has entered appearance through a counsel. 6. Therefore, having expressed the intention to exercise jurisdiction over this suit, I now turn to the stage of the suit. 7. The defendant has entered appearance through a counsel. To be noted, the Interlocutory Applications had been contested by the defendant. But, none appears today for the defendant. With an intention to give one more opportunity to the defendant, Post the matter under the caption 'Undefended Board' on 21.12.2017.” 4. Thereafter, on 18.01.2018, Mr. C. Ramesh learned counsel has entered appearance for the sole defendant and he has now filed a written statement together with supporting documents and advance copies to the plaintiff counsel. I am informed that the suit summons was served on the sole defendant on 19.07.2016. 5. In the light of the above said narrative/chronicle of trajectory of this litigation, sole defendant has taken out this instant application with a prayer to condone 520 days delay in filing written statement. To be noted, sole defendant has taken out this application under Order V Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC for brevity). Further to be noted, Order V Rule 1 is the substantial provision of law invoked and obviously it has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules. 6. From the narrative supra, it will be clear that this Commercial Division has expressed its intention to exercise jurisdiction over this suit on 15.12.2017. Therefore, a question arises as to whether the aforesaid provision i.e. Order V Rule 1 would apply to the instant case. In search of an answer to this question, I turn to proviso to Section 15(4) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016), which is hereinafter referred to as Act 4 of 2016. 7. To be noted, there are two provisos to sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order V. I deem it appropriate to extract entire sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order V together with the provisos. The same reads as follows: “1. Summons (1) When a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the written statement of the defence, if any, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on that defendant. The same reads as follows: “1. Summons (1) When a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the written statement of the defence, if any, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on that defendant. Provided that no such summons shall be issued when a defendant has appeared at the presentation of plaint and admitted the plaintiff's claim: Provided further that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. 8. While there are two provisos to the aforesaid Order V Rule 1 Sub-Rule (1), in proviso to Section 15 (4) of Act 4 of 2016, the term proviso has been used in singular while referring to sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order V. Therefore, the question arises as to which of the two provisos will not apply. 9. There are two possible answers to this. Only the second proviso to Order V Rule 1 sub-rule (1) deals with extending time for filing written statement and therefore, the reference to proviso in singular in proviso to Section 15(4) of Act 4 of 2016 should be read as second proviso. The other possible answer is as there are two provisos to Order V Rule 1 Sub-rule (1) proviso in singular should be construed as provisos in plural. 10. I have applied my mind to both the possible answers. I prefer the latter/second answer and say that the term proviso, occurring in proviso to Section 15(4) of Act 4 of 2016, should be construed as provisos in plural. In other words, both the provisos will not apply when jurisdiction under Act 4 of 2016 is exercised over a suit. 11. This takes us back to the prayer in the instant application. The reason given for the delay is that the counsel, who originally appeared for the sole defendant, had gone abroad and returned the case bundle along with change of vakalat, which resulted in delay in filing change of vakalat. 12. Mr. 11. This takes us back to the prayer in the instant application. The reason given for the delay is that the counsel, who originally appeared for the sole defendant, had gone abroad and returned the case bundle along with change of vakalat, which resulted in delay in filing change of vakalat. 12. Mr. Abishek Jenasenan, learned counsel for sole plaintiff submits that even if this Commercial Division exercises its discretion under proviso to Section 15(4) of Act 4 of 2016, the delay should be construed as 520 days. 13. Though the aforesaid submission cannot be completely ignored, considering the fact that this Commercial Division is in seizin of this matter only from 15.02.2017 (to be noted Commercial Division was notified in this Court on 04.12.2017) and also considering the fact that this application is for condonation of delay in filing written statement, I take a liberal view and hold that the written statement can be taken on file by considering the reckoning date as 15.12.2017. To be noted, with regard to condonation of delay in filing written statement, I have taken this view considering the reasons given for delay in the instant case. To be noted, the reason is relatable to the counsel and not to the litigant. Moreover, the factual aspect of the reason is not in dispute. Therefore, this order/view shall not be cited as a precedent in other matters seeking condonation of delay in filing written statement. Applications for condonation of delay in filing written statement should be dealt with on a case to case basis. 14. It is made clear that this order can however be cited as a precedent for the purpose of construing the term proviso occurring in proviso to Section 15(4) of Act 4 of 2016 as provisos. 15. In the light of the narrative supra, this application is allowed. 16. Written statement is taken on file.