ORDER : Sunita Agarwal, C.J. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The present petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the Commercial Court in closing the opportunity of the defendant/petitioner herein to file written statement in the Commercial Suit. 3. Pertinent is to note that in the order dated 25.07.2022 in the Commercial Civil Suit No. 3482 of 2021, the Commercial Court noted that the learned advocate for the defendant was present. On perusal of the record, it further noted that the defendant had been duly served with the process and the vakalatnama was filed by the learned advocate appearing for the defendant vide Exh. 12 on 21.02.2019, however, no written statement had been filed till 25.07.2022. Noticing that more than 120 days had expired since the service of the summons, in the facts of the case, it was directed that right of the defendant to file written statement be closed. We may further note that an application seeking for recall of the order dated 25.07.2022 was filed by the defendant on 21.02.2023, who was otherwise represented through his counsel, which has also been dismissed on the same date, noticing that the statutory limitation had already lapsed long back and the application cannot be allowed. 4. By means of the instant petition presented on 23.08.2023, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs :- “A. Your Lordships be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in nature of certiorary quashing and setting aside order passed below Exh. 19 in the Commercial Civil Suit No. 3482 of 2021 passed by the Learned Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad and thereby allow the application vide Exh. 19 in Commercial Civil Suit no. 3482 of 2021 pending before the Learned Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad; B. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, your Lordships be pleased to stay the further proceedings in Commercial Civil Suit no. 3482 of 2021 pending before the Learned Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.” 5. The challenge essentially is to the order passed on Exh.19 dated 21.o2.2023, i.e. on recall application. 3482 of 2021 pending before the Learned Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.” 5. The challenge essentially is to the order passed on Exh.19 dated 21.o2.2023, i.e. on recall application. And there is no challenge to the order dated 25.07.2022 whereby the opportunity to the defendant to file the written statement had been closed. 6. Be that as it may, by means of the order dated 25.06.2024, we have directed the learned advocate for the petitioner to file the complete copies of the order sheet of the Civil Suit No. 1473 of 2017, which was converted into the Commercial Civil Suit No. 3482 of 2021. The order sheet brought on record alongwith the affidavit filed by the petitioner on 8.7.2024, indicates that the original suit was presented before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad on 19.09.2017 and summons were issued on 26.12.2017. On various dates, the process/summons issued to the defendants returned unserved for one or other reasons and the matter remained pending for long. Ultimately, the defendant was served through the Registered A.D.Post and had put in appearance before the Civil Court on 29.01.2019 through an advocate, who filed an undertaking for filling vakalatnama. The matter was again adjourned on the request of the learned advocate appearing for the defendant on the next date fixed, which was 05.02.2019. The vakalatnama was filed by the learned advocate appearing for the defendant namely the petitioner herein on 21.02.2019. The order sheet dated 15.03.2019 records that the defendant or his advocate had not given application for time to file written statement and in absence of the written statement, the suit is undefended. 7. On various dates thereafter fixed in the year 2021, the defendant’s advocate remained absent, which is evident from the copy of the order sheet dated 02.03.2021, 23.06.2021, 07.07.2021 and 22.07.2021. The order dated 28.07.2021 records that the summary suit is to be re-numbered appropriately and is to be transferred to the Commercial Court, the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, Upon transfer, it was registered as Commercial Civil Suit no. 3482 of 2021 on 7.8.2021. On the dates fixed thereafter, i.e. 18.10.2021 and 13.12.2021, no one appeared for the defendant. The order dated 28.07.2021 records that the summary suit is to be re-numbered appropriately and is to be transferred to the Commercial Court, the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, Upon transfer, it was registered as Commercial Civil Suit no. 3482 of 2021 on 7.8.2021. On the dates fixed thereafter, i.e. 18.10.2021 and 13.12.2021, no one appeared for the defendant. On 25.7.2022, in the presence of the learned advocate appearing for the defendant, the order was passed by the Commercial Court to close the opportunity of the defendant to file written statement noticing that no written statement had been filed since after filing of the vakalatnama by the learned advocate on 21.02.2019. 8. Noticing the above, it is more than evident that the defendant had avoided the proceedings of the summary suit which was initially filed before the civil court by avoiding service of summons and later by taking adjournments or remaining absent. Inspite of filling of the vakalatnama on 21.02.2019, no written statement had been filed. No application seeking for condonation of delay in filling the written statement had been presented either before the Civil Court in the original suit or before the Commercial Court after transfer. We, therefore, find that the defendant has succeeded in delaying the proceedings of the suit for sufficient long time. Moreover, the present writ petition invoking our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed after a period of approximately six months of the dismissal of the application dated 21.02.2023 seeking recall of the order of closure of opportunity to file written statement dated 25.07.2022. No explanation is forthcoming for the delay caused. Even the application seeking recall of the order dated 25.07.2022 was filed after about 5 months, for which no explanation is forthcoming. 9. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is based on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Process Equipments and Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Even the application seeking recall of the order dated 25.07.2022 was filed after about 5 months, for which no explanation is forthcoming. 9. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is based on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Process Equipments and Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Honest Derivatives Pvt. Ltd. [2022 LivLaw (SC) 928] to submit that in view of the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 15 of the Commercial Court Act, 2015, timeline provided in Order V Rule 1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure for filling written statement, does not apply to the Commercial Court and the Commercial Court was at liberty to grant further time to the petitioner to file a written statement and the order closing opportunity to file written statement stating that written statement had not been filed for more than 120 days is in ignorance of the provisions of sub-section(4) of Section 15 of the Commercial Court Act, 2015. The submission, thus, is that the Commercial Court has erred in refusing to exercise its discretion to condone the delay in filling the written statement and providing a new time-line, inasmuch as the timeline prescribed in Order V Rule(1) was not applicable after transfer of the suit before the Commercial Court. 10. We find inherent fallacy in the argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner from careful reading of the proviso to sub-section(4) of Section 15 of the Commercial Court Act, 2015, which confers discretion upon the Commercial Court to prescribe a new time period within which written statement shall be filed, stating that the time-line provided in Order V Rule 1(1) shall not be applicable to transferred suit before the Commercial Court. The language employed in the proviso to sub-section(4) of Section 15 of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 cannot be given a meaning, as sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to hold that the time line provided in Order V Rule 1(1) would be obliterated in each and every case where the suit is transferred to the Commercial Court and, as such, it is mandated for the Commercial Court to provide a new time-line after transfer or extend the period for filling written statement necessarily. The discretion conferred upon the Commercial Court by virtue of proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 15 of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 is in order to balance the equities and, in the instant case the Commercial Court has refused to exercise its discretion looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Being in supervisory jurisdiction, which is extraordinary in the nature under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, we do not find any perversity in the order of the Commercial Court in refusing to exercise its discretion and no jurisdictional error could be said to have occurred in passing the order dated 25.07.2022, whereby the opportunity to file written statement has been closed. 12. In the said scenario, we do not find any good ground to invoke our extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to attach any illegality in the order passed by the Commercial Court. No benefit can be derived from the decision Raj Process Equipments and Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. With the above, the present petition stands dismissed.