JUDGMENT : Krishna Rao, J. 1. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 have filed the instant application praying for extension of time to file the written statement. The plaintiff has filed Civil Suit No. 242 of 2018 on 7th December, 2018 and writ were issued on 22nd February, 2019. The writ of summons were served upon the defendant nos.1 and 2 on 4th April, 2019 and thus the defendants no.1 and 2 were supposed to file their written statement on or before 9th May, 2019. The defendant nos.1 & 2 entered appearance on 17th April, 2019 but due to change of Advocate as well as resolution of Pen Down taken by the Bar Council of West Bengal which had continued till 9th June, 2019 and on 10th June, 2019, the Court was reopened after summer vacation. After consultation with the Senior Counsel, finally on 10th July, 2019, written statement was settled and on 11th July, 2019, the instant application was filed and thus there is a delay of 63 days but have filed the same before completion of 120 days. 2. In the meantime, the plaintiff had also filed an application being GA No. 2267 of 2019 praying for amendment in the plaint and GA No. 1299 of 2019 (New GA No. 2 of 2019) praying for Judgment on admission. The applications filed by the plaintiff was taken up for hearing on 20th November, 2019 and this Court has disposed of the said application being GA No. 2267 of 2019 by allowing the amendment and the plaintiff has withdrawn GA No. 1299 of 2019 with liberty to file afresh. The application filed by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 being GA No. 1592 of 2019 was also taken up for hearing with the consent of both the parties and accordingly this Court has allowed the defendants herein to file composite written statement after the writ of summons of the amended plaint is served upon the defendant. 3. On 6th December, 2019, this Court has recalled the order dated 20th November, 2019 and dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff being GA No. 2267 of 2019 with the liberty to file afresh. 4. Subsequent to the order dated 6th December, 2019, the plaintiff has filed an application being GA No. 2941 of 2019 (New GA 5 of 2019) praying for amendment in the plaint. 4. Subsequent to the order dated 6th December, 2019, the plaintiff has filed an application being GA No. 2941 of 2019 (New GA 5 of 2019) praying for amendment in the plaint. The said application was taken up for hearing on 7th January, 2020 and this Court has allowed the amendment but the issues raised by the defendants was kept open. In the said order, this Court has revived the GA No. 1299 of 2019 and treated the said application on the days list and allowed, the plaintiff to withdraw the said application with the liberty to file afresh. 5. The defendants herein have filed an application being GA 7 of 2021 for rejection of plaint and for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865. The plaintiff has filed an application being GA No. 6 of 2020 praying for leave to dispense with pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 6. By an order dated 7th April, 2021, this Court had disposed of both the applications being G.A. 6 of 2020 and G.A. 7 of 2021 by allowing the application filed by the plaintiff and dismissed the application filed by the defendant. 7. The defendants herein filed an application being GA 9 of 2021 praying for following reliefs : “(b) The Judgment dated 07.04.2021 be recalled and modified by expunging the part of the Judgment dated 07.04.2021 recording “and for extension of time to file written statement if the plaint is not rejected” as appearing at page 11 of the said Order and as mentioned in paragraph 20 of the supporting affidavit and to adjudicate and decide the right of the defendants to file Written Statement in the facts and circumstances of the case and the Judgment dated 07.04.2021 may be modified by allowing the defendant to file Written Statement within the time specified by this Hon’ble Court on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 8. By an order dated 12th August, 2021, this Court has disposed of the said application being GA No. 9 of 2021 by passing following order: “The Court: Learned advocate appearing for the applicant seeks extension of time to file affidavit in reply. The prayer is considered and refused. The applicant seeks recall of a portion of the order dated April 7, 2021. The prayer is considered and refused. The applicant seeks recall of a portion of the order dated April 7, 2021. The portion which the applicant seeks recall is “. . . and for extension of time to file written statement if the plaint is not rejected”. The portion of the order as identified by the applicant is a finding of fact returned by the Court. Such finding was arrived at on the basis of the documents made available to Court. I find no reason to recall the identified portion of the order. IA No. GA/9/2021 is disposed of accordingly.” 9. Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Learned Advocate, representing the defendant nos. 1 and 2 submits that the defendant has filed the instant application within the period of 120 days for acceptance of written statement and the defendants have already affirmed written statement on 12th July, 2019 with respect of pre-amendment plaint. 10. Mr. Ghosh submits that any prayer made subsequently in the post amendment stage cannot have any bearing with the prayer made during the pre-amendment stage as the cause of action is also different. He submits that prayer made in the present application cannot be said to be covered by any order passed at post amendment stage. 11. Mr. Ghosh submits that by order dated 20th November, 2019, this Court had allowed the defendants to file composite written statement after the writ summons of the amended plaint is served upon the defendants but the said order was recalled on 6th December, 2019 and thus the instant application is restored and no order is passed in connection with the present application. 12. Mr Sakya Sen, learned Advocate representing the plaintiff submits that plaintiff had lodged a writ of summons of the amended plaint on 11th February, 2020 but the Learned Registrar was of the opinion that all the contesting defendants have entered appearance through their learned advocates and the plaintiff had already served the copy of amended plaint and thus there is no need to serve a fresh writ of summons. 13. Mr. Sen submits that the defendants herein have specifically challenged the point of non-service of a writ of summons of the amended plaint in G.A. 7 of 2021 but while passing an order dated 7th April ,2021, the prayer made by the defendants was rejected. 14. Mr. 13. Mr. Sen submits that the defendants herein have specifically challenged the point of non-service of a writ of summons of the amended plaint in G.A. 7 of 2021 but while passing an order dated 7th April ,2021, the prayer made by the defendants was rejected. 14. Mr. Sen submits that all the contentions raised by the defendant nos.1 and 2 was categorically refused by this Court by an order dated 12th August, 2021. He submits that the contention of the defendant no.1 is already rejected and thus the instant application is barred by res judicata. 15. In the order dated 7th April, 2021, this Court has recorded that the defendants have prayed for rejection of plaint and for extension of time to file written statement in the plaint is not rejected but in the conclusion portion of the said order, this Court held that no order can be passed in GA No. 6 of 2020 as the plaintiff cannot be non-suited due to the absence of the infrastructure under Section 12A of the Act of 2015. At the time of institution of suit and GA No. 7 of 2021 filed by the defendants was dismissed. In the recalling application, this Court by order 12th August, 2021 recorded that the portion namely “and for extension of time to file written statement if the plaint is not rejected” if, the finding recorded by the court as per the document. Thus there is no conclusive order passed by this Court with regard to the prayer made by the defendant for extension of time to file written statement. 16. By an order dated 7th January, 2020, this Court has allowed the amendment as sought for by the plaintiff and the copy of amended plaint was served to the defendants on 12th February, 2020. 17. In the case reported in (1972) 2 SCC 54 (The United Provinces Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Allahabad –vs– Their Workmen), the Supreme Court held that interlocutory judgments which have the force of a decree must be distinguished from other interlocutory judgments which are a step towards the decision of the dispute between the parties by way of decree or final order. 18. Ltd., Allahabad –vs– Their Workmen), the Supreme Court held that interlocutory judgments which have the force of a decree must be distinguished from other interlocutory judgments which are a step towards the decision of the dispute between the parties by way of decree or final order. 18. In the case reported in (2001) 9 SCC 562 (The Brahma Vart Sanatan Dharm Mahamandal –vs-Kanhyalal Bagla and Others), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if, the matter in issue directly and substantially in a prior litigation and decided against the party then decision could be res judicata in a subsequent proceeding. Judicial decision, however, held that if, a matter was only “collaterally or incidentally” in issue and decided in an earlier proceeding, the finding therein would not ordinarily be res judicata in a later proceeding where the matter is directly and substantially in issue. 19. The judgments relied by the plaintiff is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present application. 20. In the present case though initially, this Court has allowed the application filed by the defendants for filing composite written statement after receipt of the amended plaint but subsequently the order was recalled. In the order dated 7th April, 2021 though the submission of the Counsel was recorded but no final order was passed whether the time to file written statement was extended or rejected and thus question of res judicata does not arise. 21. In the present proceeding, the plaintiff has relied upon a communication dated 13th December, 2022 wherein the Deputy Registrar (Ct.&J) had informed the plaintiff that as per Department ledger, the Civil Suit No. 242 of 2018 was filed on 4th December, 2018 in the Commercial Division but admittedly the suit was listed before the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Original Side and not before the Commercial Division and plaintiff has filed an application for transfer of the suit before the Commercial Division and accordingly this Court had passed an order for transfer and thus the submission made by the plaintiff cannot stand. 22. Admittedly, by an order dated 7th January, 2020, the suit was transferred before this Court on the application filed by the plaintiff. 22. Admittedly, by an order dated 7th January, 2020, the suit was transferred before this Court on the application filed by the plaintiff. Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 requires the Commercial Division to follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the Act of 2015 in the trial of a suit in respect of commercial dispute of a specified value. However, the proviso to Sub-Section (4) of Section 15 prescribes that the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not apply to a transferred suit, and the Court retains the discretion to prescribe a new time period within which the written statement can be filed and the application for extension of time to file the written statement filed by the defendant nos. 1 & 2 require consideration. The time to file written statement can be allowed on judicial recognised principles one of which is that, the defendant adequately explain as to, the delay in filing the written statement within the time stipulated. 23. In the present case, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 prayed for extension of time to file written statement from the date of expiry of the time period to file written statement as prescribed by the writ of summons till the date of making of application for extension of time to file written statement, on the ground that all of a sudden on 25th April, 2019, the Bar Council of West Bengal took a resolution of “Pen Down” throughout the State of West Bengal due to which all Advocates refrain from participating in any judicial proceeding in all courts including the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta. After reopening of the Court after summer vacation, as per the advice of the learned Senior Advocate had prepared written statement and the same was duly settled by senior advocate and was filed on 10th July, 2019. It is further stated that in the case of defendants, they have filed the instant application before completion of 120 days. In the meantime, several interlocutory applications were also filed and the suit was transferred before this Court. The plaintiff has also filed an application for judgment on admission which was also taken up for hearing along with the present application. In the meantime, several interlocutory applications were also filed and the suit was transferred before this Court. The plaintiff has also filed an application for judgment on admission which was also taken up for hearing along with the present application. When the present application was filed, the defendant nos.1 and 2 have also filed their written statement but during the pendency of the instant application, the plaintiff has made an application for amendment and the same which was also allowed. At the time of hearing, the counsel for the defendant nos. 1 and 2 submits that the defendants will file their written statement within 10 days. 24. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above and considering the conduct of defendant nos. 1 and 2 as explained in the application for extension of time to file written statement, this Court is of the considered view, that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to be given one opportunity to file written statement in the present suit. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 are directed to file the written statement within 10 days from date. 25. G.A. No. 3 of 2019 (Old GA No.1592 of 2019) is thus disposed of.