ORDER : Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - Although, the matter comes up on an application filed by the respondents No.1 & 3/defendants No.1 & 3 seeking vacation of ex parte interim order dated 17.10.2019; but, on the request of learned counsels for the respective parties, the writ petition is heard on its merit at this stage. 2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality and validity of the order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the learned Commercial Court No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.24/2019 whereby, the application filed by the respondents No.1 to 3/defendants No.1 to 3 to take the written statement on record, has been allowed qua the respondents No.1 & 3/defendants No.1 & 3 as ex parte proceeding was already drawn against the respondent No.2/defendant No.2. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner/plaintiff (for brevity "the petitioner") filed a suit against the respondents No.1 to 4 for recovery of money in the Court of learned Additional District Judge No.1, Behror, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned ADJ") wherein, right of the respondents No.1 & 3 to file written statement was closed vide order dated 16.10.2017. On 24.01.2018, the respondents No.1 to 3 filed an application along with written statement praying therein for taking the same on record. Before the application could be decided, the matter stood transferred to the learned Commercial Court No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") under Section 15 (2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short "the Act of 2015). The application filed by the respondents No.1 to 3 for taking the written statement on record, has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 10.07.2019 qua the respondents No.1 & 3 subject to a cost of Rs.25,000/-, the subject-matter of challenge. 4. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court erred in allowing the application inasmuch as the written statement was filed beyond the permissible limit of 90/120 days. 4. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court erred in allowing the application inasmuch as the written statement was filed beyond the permissible limit of 90/120 days. Relying upon a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 25.01.2022 in case of Amoda Iron Steel Limited v. Sneha Anlytics and Scientifics: Civil Revision Petition No.1261/2020, learned counsel submits that the Commercial Court did not have jurisdiction to extend the time once granted to file the written statement under Section 15 (4) of the Act of 2015. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 10.07.2019 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the respondents be dismissed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the provisions of the Act of 2015 were inapplicable in the present case inasmuch they had already filed written statement along with the application dated 24.01.2018; but, before the application could be decided, the case stood transferred to the learned Commercial Court on 12.11.2018. He submits that the learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by them in the interest of justice subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- which they have already paid and hence, no interference by this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction is warranted. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court dated 28.01.2021 in case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Colonial Life Insurance Company (Trinidad) Ltd. & Ors.. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. The suit came to be filed in the Court learned ADJ by the petitioner wherein, right of the respondents to file written statement was closed having not been filed within the stipulated period. However, they filed an application dated 24.01.2018 along with the written statement praying therein to take the same on record; but, before the same could be considered and decided, the case was transferred to the learned Commercial Court under Section 15(2) of the Act of 2015. 8. Section 15(3) of the Act of 2015 provides as under:- "15. However, they filed an application dated 24.01.2018 along with the written statement praying therein to take the same on record; but, before the same could be considered and decided, the case was transferred to the learned Commercial Court under Section 15(2) of the Act of 2015. 8. Section 15(3) of the Act of 2015 provides as under:- "15. Transfer of pending cases.- (1) xxxxxxxxx (2) xxxxxxxxx (3) Where any suit or application, including an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to a commercial dispute of Specified Value shall stand transferred to the Commercial Division or Commercial Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall apply to those procedures that were not complete at the time of transfer." 9. Provisions of sub-Section (3) makes it clear that in the transferred cases, the provisions of the Act of 2015 shall apply to those procedures which were not completed at the time of transfer. The Civil Court, i.e., learned ADJ, under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure could have taken the written statement filed by the respondents on record even after its closure as the provisions of Order V Rule 1 CPC and/or provisions of Order VIII Rules 1 & 10 CPC laying down the time limit for filing of the written statement are directory in nature only and not mandatory as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of cases (Reference may be made to Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors.: (2005) 4 SCC 480 ). Since, the application by the respondents for taking the written statement was pending when the case was transferred, it cannot be held that procedure for filing the written statement was complete by that time. 10. Here, it would be profitable to refer to the relevant provisions of Section 15 (4) which lay down as under:- "15. Since, the application by the respondents for taking the written statement was pending when the case was transferred, it cannot be held that procedure for filing the written statement was complete by that time. 10. Here, it would be profitable to refer to the relevant provisions of Section 15 (4) which lay down as under:- "15. Transfer of pending cases.- (1) xxxxxxxxx (2) xxxxxxxxx (3) xxxxxxxxx (4) The Commercial Division or Commercial Court, as the case may be, may hold case management hearings in respect of such transferred suit or application in order to prescribe new timelines or issue such further directions as may be necessary for a speedy and efficacious disposal of such suit or application in accordance [with Order XV-A] of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908): Provided that the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall not apply to such transferred suit or application and the court may, in its discretion, prescribe a new time period within which the written statement shall be filed." 11. In view of the proviso to sub-Section 4, the Commercial Court has jurisdiction to prescribe the new time period within which the written statement can be filed beyond the limitation prescribed under the CPC. In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court did not err in allowing the application filed by the respondents for taking the written statement on record which otherwise also is in the interest of substantial justice. 12. A Division Bench of Hon'ble Bombay High Court has, in case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) wherein, the defendant No.1 in a transferred commercial suit failed to file reply within the prescribed period of 120 days from the date of original order, after interpreting the provisions of the Act of 2015, held as under:- "14. The learned single Judge has accordingly correctly interpreted the law and came to a correct conclusion that the mandatory timeline of 120 days for filing of a written statement in a commercial suit is not applicable to suits originally filed as ordinary suits, and which have been transferred as commercial suits to be heard by the commercial division of this Court, under Section 15(1) of the Commercial Courts Act." 13. The present case is on much better footing inasmuch as herein, the respondents had already filed the written statement in the Court of learned ADJ along with an application to take the same on record much before it stood transferred to the learned Commercial Court. 14. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in case of Amoda Iron Steel Limited (supra) is of no assistance to him. In that case, before the suit stood transferred to the Commercial Court under Section 15(2), the petitioner/defendant had filed an application under Section 148 read with section 151 CPC seeking extension of time for filing of the written statement which came to be dismissed in default by the learned Commercial Court after it was transferred to it and an application for its restoration was also dismissed. Allowing the revision petition filed by the defendant against the rejection of his application for restoration of the application filed under Section 148 read with section 151 CPC, Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held as under:- "61. We are therefore of the considered view and hold on point No. 1 as under:- 1) where the suit or application has been transferred to the Commercial Court under Section 15 (2) of the Act, 2015 from the civil court and the procedure for filing written statement had not been completed at the time of transfer, the commercial court shall have the power and jurisdiction to prescribe a new time period for filing written statement, irrespective of the expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons on the concerned defendant. 2) In a suit or application transferred to the commercial court under Section 15(2) of the Act, 2015, the written statement shall be filed within the new time period prescribed by the Commercial Court in exercise of power under Section 15(4) of the Act, 2015, failing which, on expiry of new time line so prescribed, the defendant shall forfeit his right to file written statement and the court shall neither take the written statement on record nor shall extend the new prescribed time period as mandated by Order VIII rules 1 and 10 CPC. 62. 62. The above view would make both the provisions Section 15(4) proviso and Order VIII rules 1 and 10 workable to the best possible extent and shall also advance the object with which the Act, 2015 has been enacted considering the legislative intent. 63. In view of the aforesaid, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that section 148 CPC does not apply to the commercial court, even if accepted, the Commercial Court shall have power to provide a new time period for filing written statement under Section 15(4) of the Act, 2015 itself, independent of section 148 CPC. 64. In view of the aforesaid the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the period of 120 days under Order VIII rule 1, shall be counted from the date of transfer of the suit under Section 15(2), does not appeal us. 65. In view of the above, the ground on which I.A. No. 31 of 2020 has been dismissed is legally unsustainable." 15. In the aforesaid judgment; rather, it was held by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court that after the matter is transferred to the Commercial Court under Section 15(2) of the Act of 2015 wherein, the procedure for filing of the written statement had not been completed at the time of transfer, the Commercial Court shall have the power and jurisdiction to prescribe a new time period for filing the written statement, irrespective of the expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons on the concerned defendant. 16. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. Pending application also stands disposed of accordingly.