ORDER : SUDESH BANSAL, J. 1. Instant civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by petitioner-defendant, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur, in Commercial Suit No.38/2024: Allen Career Institute Private Ltd. Vs. Allen Classes , whereby and whereunder, while dismissing application under Section 151 CPC filed by petitioner-defendant, his written statement, submitted on 11.07.2024 before the Commercial Court, has been declined to be taken on record, treating the same to be filed by the defendant after expiry of the upper time limit of 120 days, from service of summons of the commercial suit. 2. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the requisite court fees as per the relief claimed in the present commercial suit, was not paid by the respondent-plaintiff at the time of presentation of plaint on 25.01.2024, yet summon of such defective plaint, was issued by the Commercial Court to defendant, and when after service of summon & appearance of defendant, the deficiency of court fees was pointed out by the defendant, then and thereafter only, under the order of Commercial Court dated 20.03.2024, plaintiff made up the deficit court fees of Rs.5,02,125/- on 15.04.2024, which was taken on record, hence in such peculiar circumstances, defendant be given time to file written statement w.e.f. 15.04.2024, and the written statement submitted by the petitioner-defendant on 11.07.2024, be treated to be filed well within the statutory period of timeline of 120 days. Counsel for petitioner contends that the Commercial Court has committed grave illegality, perversity and jurisdictional error in treating the written statement of petitioner-defendant to be filed after expiry of the upper time limit of 120 days from date of service of summon and declining the same to take on record, which has resulted manifest injustice and irreparable loss to the petitioner. Hence, it has been prayed that impugned order warrants interference by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and after setting aside the impugned order, the written statement, already submitted by the petitioner-defendant before the Commercial Court on 11.07.2024, be ordered to be taken on record. 3. Hence, it has been prayed that impugned order warrants interference by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and after setting aside the impugned order, the written statement, already submitted by the petitioner-defendant before the Commercial Court on 11.07.2024, be ordered to be taken on record. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has repelled the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner-defendant, stating inter alia that the present commercial suit was filed by plaintiff on 25.01.2024, wherein after service of summon upon defendant, he put in appearance on 07.03.2024, hence the written statement, submitted on record on 11.07.2024 (i.e. after 124 days), has rightly been observed to be filed after expiry of the statutory outer time limit of 120 days from the date of service of summon and since the right of defendant to file written statement has been forfeited and the time limit of 120 days is not further extendable in the commercial nature of suit(s), therefore, the Commercial Court committed no error in declining to take the belated filed written statement of defendant on record. Thus, it has been submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Commercial Court, well within jurisdiction and bounds of law, which does not warrant any interference by the High Court and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for both parties at quite some length and perused the record carefully. 5. The clinching issues, which have come up for consideration before this Court, are as to whether the Commercial Court erred in declining to take written statement of defendant on record, treating the same to be submitted after expiry of the upper time limit of 120 days from the date of service of summons of commercial suit? And, whether the date of service of summons of present commercial suit on defendant can be treated w.e.f. 15.04.2024 and written statement filed by defendant on 11.07.2024 is within the maximum timeline of 120 days as envisaged in the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and hence can be permitted to be taken on record? 6. And, whether the date of service of summons of present commercial suit on defendant can be treated w.e.f. 15.04.2024 and written statement filed by defendant on 11.07.2024 is within the maximum timeline of 120 days as envisaged in the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and hence can be permitted to be taken on record? 6. At the outset, there is no quarrel about the legal position that the upper time limit of 120 days (30+90 days), as envisaged in the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC , is mandatory period to file written statement by the defendant and in the commercial nature of suit(s), the Commercial Court has no jurisdiction to extend such time limit. Such proposition of law has been made explicit by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/S SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. KS Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. [(2019) 12 SCC 210] . It has also been held and observed by the Apex Court in case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Limited Vs. KS Infraspace Llp Limited [ (2020) 15 SCC 585 ] that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and various amendments to the CPC and insertion of new rules to the Code, applicable to the suits of commercial disputes, have been indicated for the purpose of providing early disposal of high value commercial disputes, hence provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 require to be strictly construed, in order to achieve and fulfill the object to resolve the commercial disputes at fast-track and speedily. 7. It is undisputed fact on record that the respondent-plaintiff filed present commercial suit under Sections 134 & 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 read with Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 , seeking issuance of permanent injunction against petitioner-defendant not to use trade-name “Allen Classes” or any other identical/ deceptively similar trade-name/ trademark as also claiming for damages and rendition of account, but did not make payment of full requisite court fees as per prayer made in the suit, at the time of presentation of the commercial suit on 25.01.2024, yet the Commercial Court issued summon of such defective suit to the defendant on 15.02.2024. When, after service of summon, defendant put in appearance before the Commercial Court on 15.03.2024 and raised an objection by way of filing an application on 15.03.2024 itself, to reject the commercial suit at the threshold due to not filing the complete and requisite court fees, then the Commercial Court, vide order dated 20.03.2024, directed plaintiff to make up the deficiency of court fees on the claimed damages of Rs. 2 Crores and granted time period of 30 days to pay the deficit court fees and thereafter only, plaintiff paid the deficit court fees of Rs.5,02,125/- on 15.04.2024. 8. In case of Dr. Zubair Ul Abidin Vs. Sameena Abidin @ Sameena Khan [(2015) 1 Civil Court Cases 135] , the Division Bench of Delhi High Court, while interpreting provision of Order IV Rule 1(3) read with Order VI and Order VII of CPC , clearly held that there can be no due institution of a suit without proper court fees being paid and if there is no institution of suit qua one of the reliefs, the question of putting the same to trial does not arise. For ready reference, relevant para of the judgment i.e. Para No.11 reads as under:- “11. We may in this regard also notice, the addition of Sub- Rule (3) to Rule 1 of Order IV of the CPC vide the CPC Amendment Act of the year 2002. The same provides that the plaint shall not be deemed to be duly instituted unless it complies with the requirements of Sub-Rules (1) and (2) of Rule 1. Sub-Rule (2) requires a plaint to comply with Order VI and Order VII. Rule 11 of Order VII as aforesaid, itself provides that where the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped and the plaintiff, on being required to supply the requisite stamp paper fails to do so, the plaint shall be rejected. Thus, as per the newly added Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order IV, there can be no due institution of a suit without proper court feess being paid. If there is no institution of the suit qua one of the reliefs, the question of putting the same to trial does not arise.” (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Thus, as per the newly added Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order IV, there can be no due institution of a suit without proper court feess being paid. If there is no institution of the suit qua one of the reliefs, the question of putting the same to trial does not arise.” (Emphasis Supplied) 9. It appears from record that on 15.04.2024, after payment of deficit court fees of Rs.5,02,125/-, same was ordered to be taken on record by the Commercial Court and time upto 14.05.2024 was granted to the defendant to file written statement. On 14.05.2024, the defendant prayed for to grant some additional time to file written statement, whereupon the time was granted and the next date was given by the Commercial Court for 11.07.2024. On 11.07.2024, defendant submitted his written statement on record before the Commercial Court, but plaintiff raised an oral objection that the written statement has been filed after expiry of 120 days from the service of summon on the defendant, hence written statement cannot be taken on record, so the matter was deferred for 29.08.2024 to be heard on this objection. 10. It appears that thereafter, an application under Section 151 CPC was filed by defendant on 02.09.2024 stating inter alia that prior to 15.04.2024, the suit could not be treated to be properly instituted as per provision of Order VII of CPC , due to non- payment of complete court fees, hence the defendant should have granted time to file written statement within 30 days w.e.f. 15.04.2024, but since the written statement by defendant was filed on 11.07.2024, which is well within 120 days from 15.04.2024 and further, delay in filing written statement after 30 days, is not deliberate, rather condonable, hence the written statement may be permitted to be taken on record, and defendant be allowed to contest and defend the commercial suit on merits. The reason for delay was assigned by the defendant that defendant lives at Visakhapatnam and to collect the certificates & documents in order to prepare the defence of suit, time passed away, which is not deliberate & intentional, but circumstantial. 11. This application of defendant was replied by the plaintiff on 04.09.2024 and perusal of reply indicates that the reasons assigned by the defendant for not filing written statement within 30 days, were not denied/ disputed by the plaintiff. 11. This application of defendant was replied by the plaintiff on 04.09.2024 and perusal of reply indicates that the reasons assigned by the defendant for not filing written statement within 30 days, were not denied/ disputed by the plaintiff. The only objection of plaintiff was that since defendant has put in appearance in the present commercial suit on 07.03.2024, therefore, from that date at-least the written statement ought to have been filed within 120 days, but indeed written statement has been filed by defendant after expiry of 124 days i.e. on 11.07.2024, which is beyond the statutory timeline, hence right of defendant to submit written statement has been forfeited, as such the written statement cannot be allowed to be taken on record. 12. The Commercial Court, after hearing the counsel for bothparties on application u/s. 151 CPC , filed by defendant to take written statement on record, held and observed in the order impugned dated 26.09.2024, that the presentation of plaint with a deficit court fees, cannot be taken as a major defect in institution of the suit, since deficiency of court fees may be made up obviously within the time granted by the Court, in view of Section 149 CPC and the deficiency in the court fees did not prevent the defendant in any manner from filing written statement. The Commercial Court observed that service of summon of the plaint on defendant was effected on 20.02.2024, therefore, from that date, defendant was required to file written statement within a period of 30 days i.e. upto 21.03.2024 and thereafter, at the most, defendant could have filed written statement within 90 days from 21.03.2024 i.e. upto 19.06.2024, but not thereafter, hence the written statement submitted by defendant on 11.07.2024 has been filed after lapse of the outer time limit of 120 days from the date of service of summons upon defendant, hence same cannot be allowed to be taken on record. The Commercial Court also observed in the order impugned that since plaintiff has made up the deficiency of court fees on 15.04.2024, same would relate back to the date of institution of suit i.e. 25.01.2024, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ajay Dabra Vs. Pyare Ram: SLP (C) No.15793/2019 decided on 31.03.2023 . Accordingly, the Commercial Court dismissed the application of defendant u/s. 151 CPC and declined to take his written statement on record. Pyare Ram: SLP (C) No.15793/2019 decided on 31.03.2023 . Accordingly, the Commercial Court dismissed the application of defendant u/s. 151 CPC and declined to take his written statement on record. This order dated 26.09.2024 is impugned herein before this Court. 13. It is well established position of law that in commercial nature of suit(s), the maximum statutory timeline for filing written statement by the defendant is 120 days from the date of service of summon on the defendant, which is not further extendable in law. Nonetheless, issue in the present case is about what is the date of service of summon of commercial suit on the defendant? 14. It is true that legal position is well established as has been held and observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ajay Dabra ( Supra ), following the dictum of the Apex Court in case of Mannan Lal Vs. Mst. Chhotaka Bibi [ (1970) 1 SCC 769 ] that if deficiency in court fees is made good in terms of an order of the court, it must be held that though the curing of the defect takes place on the date of the making good of the deficiency, the defect must be treated as remedied from the date of its original institution. For ready reference, Para No.21 of the judgment delivered in case of Mannan Lal (Supra) is being extracted hereunder:- “ 21. The words used in that judgment are no doubt of wide import. But however that may be in the case before us there can be no difficulty in holding that an appeal was presented in terms of Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code inasmuch as all that this provision of law requires for an appeal to be preferred is the presentation in the form of a memorandum as therein prescribed. If the court fee s paid thereon be insufficient it does not cease to be a memorandum of appeal although the court may reject. If the deficiency in the fee s is made good in terms of an order of the court, it must be held that though the curing of the defect takes place on the date of the making good of the deficiency, the defect must be treated as remedied from the date of its original institution.” (Emphasis Supplied) 15. If the deficiency in the fee s is made good in terms of an order of the court, it must be held that though the curing of the defect takes place on the date of the making good of the deficiency, the defect must be treated as remedied from the date of its original institution.” (Emphasis Supplied) 15. It is equally true that the complete and requisite court fees as per the prayer made in the plaint, is essentially required to be paid by the plaintiff and such requirement must be complied with by the plaintiff at the time of presentation of the suit or within the time period as granted by the Court in exercise of its powers under Section 149 of CPC , failing which, the suit entails rejection at threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC , obviously subject to the stand of plaintiff to relinquish the part of claim/ relief, to which court fees has not been paid by him. A cumulative reading of the provisions of Sections 11 and 13 of the Rajasthan Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 read with Order VII of CPC , suggests and strengthens such proposition of law. The natural corollary of non-payment of full court fees on the plaint is that unless and until the complete and requisite court fees is paid by plaintiff, firstly the plaint cannot be registered and secondly, neither any further proceeding on such plaint, can be allowed to proceed nor that plaint can be put to trial as has been held and observed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in case of Dr. Zubair Ul Abidin ( Supra ). 16. In the case at hand, it is apparent and undisputed fact on record that plaintiff, in his commercial suit, also prayed for grant of punitive damages of Rs. 2 Crores against defendant, apart from praying for a decree of injunction, but he did not make payment of the court fees on the claim of damages. 16. In the case at hand, it is apparent and undisputed fact on record that plaintiff, in his commercial suit, also prayed for grant of punitive damages of Rs. 2 Crores against defendant, apart from praying for a decree of injunction, but he did not make payment of the court fees on the claim of damages. It is obvious that the Commercial Court, at the time of registering the plaint and issuance of summon to the defendant of such commercial suit, could not notice such glaring defect of non-payment of complete and requisite court fees by the plaintiff on the prayer for damages claimed in the commercial suit, however, when the defendant, after service of summon & on first date of his first appearance before the court i.e. on 15.03.2024, pointed out such glaring defect, in respect of deficiency of court fees, then the Commercial Court immediately passed the order dated 20.03.2024, directing the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fees on the claimed relief for quantum of damages of Rs.2 Crores and granted 30 days’ time to plaintiff to make good the deficiency of court fees, in order to proceed further in the commercial suit. In compliance thereof, plaintiff paid deficit court fees of Rs.5,02,125/- on 15.04.2024, which was permitted to be taken on record. 17. In the opinion of this Court, it is incumbent for the court to examine and ensure that the plaintiff must have paid full and requisite court fees, on the prayer made in the plaint and such court fees must be paid before registering the plaint and at-least before issuance of summon of plaint to the defendant. If the plaintiff does not pay the complete and requisite court fees as per valuation and prayer made in the plaint, at the time of presentation of plaint itself, the first duty of court is to direct and grant time to the plaintiff to make good the deficiency of court fees, before proceeding further for registration of plaint and unless full court fees is not paid, the occasion to issue summon to the defendant would not arise. If the plaintiff does not make good the deficiency of court fees or alternatively does not relinquish that part of plaint or relief, to which court fees has not been paid, within the stipulated time granted by the Court, the natural consequences of law would step-in, which includes rejection of plaint as a whole or rejection of that part of prayer of the plaint. But, in any case, it is sure that the Court will certainly not proceed further on such a defective plaint, which has been presented by plaintiff in the Court without making payment of the full and requisite court fees, which is required to be paid thereupon in law. It is all together a different thing that if there is some delay on the part of plaintiff to make payment of the court fees, but he pays within time granted by the court, then the perception of law is that same would relate back to the date of original presentation of plaint and plaintiff would not suffer any adverse consequences for such period of delay in making payment of court fees. 18. As per legal perception, as soon as deficiency in the court fees is made good by the plaintiff in terms of the order of the court, the plaintiff shall not be made sufferer for such period, during which he took time to make-up the deficiency of court fees, in calculating the period of limitation for filing of suit or appeal, then it is beyond comprehension that why such period be counted against the defendant, particularly for calculating the statutory timeline of filing written statement, more so when it was fault on the part of court in not noticing the deficiency of court fees on the plaint at the time of its presentation, irrespective of the fact that the error occurred either bonafidely or due to oversight, in proceeding to issue summons of such defective plaint to the defendant, which indeed is suffering from the glaring defect of non-payment of full and requisite court fees. If such a defect of non-payment of complete court fees on the plaint, would have been noticed by the court, prior to issuance of summon of plaint to the defendant, the occasion of registering of the plaint would not have arisen, let alone the issuance of summon to the defendant. If such a defect of non-payment of complete court fees on the plaint, would have been noticed by the court, prior to issuance of summon of plaint to the defendant, the occasion of registering of the plaint would not have arisen, let alone the issuance of summon to the defendant. Thus, in this manner, issuance of summon of such a defective plaint to defendant must not be given acceptance and acknowledgment in the eye of law, because such mistake happened just due to error on the part of court and for the error of court, party to lis should not be allowed to be made sufferer. 19. This Court is of the view that when it is well established principle of law that for the plaintiff or the appellant, the delayed payment of court fees does not yield any adverse effect to his legal rights for counting limitation period, and the curing of defect to make good the payment of deficient court fees relates back to its original institution of plaint or appeal, then the defendant also may not be allowed to made adversely sufferer for such period, during which plaintiff’s plaint was falling in the defective state of affairs for want of payment of full court fees and such period should not be allowed to be counted against the defendant as well for counting the statutory time of filing written statement. It would be travesty of justice and against the principle of equity & fair-play. The benefit of law should be given equally to the defendant as well by application of the principle of equity, parity and fair-play. On closer examination of the issue, it is apparent that error of non-payment of full court fees is either on the part of plaintiff or the error falls on the part of court, which may be bona fide or due to oversight, whatsoever maybe, in issuing summon to the defendant of such defective plaint. Therefore, when after noticing such defect, the plaintiff has been granted time by the court to remedy his deficiency and to make up the deficient court fees, as much as such period has not been counted against the plaintiff, then such period also should not be counted against the defendant as well, within the statutory time-limit for filing of written statement at-least. The rigour of law must be applicable to both the parties i.e. plaintiff and defendant with equality, parity and in the similar manner and spirit. In such peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the date of service of summon of plaint on the defendant should be treated w.e.f. 15.04.2024, when the plaintiff made up the deficient court fees of Rs.5,02,125/-, which was permitted by the court to be taken on record. 20. This Court is of the view that on account of availability of such undisputed facts on record and in the light of proposition of law as discussed hereinabove, defendant should have been allowed statutory period of time-limit for filing written statement w.e.f. 15.04.2024, when the deficiency of court fees was made-up by the plaintiff and not from the date of service of summons of a defective suit on 20.02.2024 or from the date of first appearance of the defendant before the Commercial Court on 15.03.2024. The logic is well explicit and clear that when the Court could not have proceeded with the suit, had this defect of deficit court fees been noticed by the Court prior to registration of plaint, then the right of defendant to file written statement may not be put at peril and cannot be held as forfeited by counting such period against the defendant within the statutory timeline of filing written statement. The defendant cannot be assumed to be at fault, by any stretch of imagination, for getting service of summon of a defective plaint, on the contrary, it is the defendant, who on the first date of his appearance before the court on 15.03.2024, immediately pointed out such defect of deficiency of court fees on the plaint and prayed to reject the plaint. Thereafter only, court woke up and directed the plaintiff to make-up the deficient court fees. Thereafter only, court woke up and directed the plaintiff to make-up the deficient court fees. In other words, mere issuance of summon to defendant of a defective plaint, apparently due to fault on the part of plaintiff or due to error on the part of court, either bonafidely or due to oversight, whatsoever may be, the defendant may not be slapped with adverse consequences to face the rigour of forfeiture of his right to file written statement and the period, even after service of summons of the suit, should not be counted against the defendant, for filing written statement, unless and until the plaintiff does not make good the deficiency of court fees within the time period granted by the court. 21. The words envisaged under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC “ defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present written statement in his defence ” may not be allowed to read in disjunction with the filing of a proper plaint by the plaintiff, which obviously must be in conformity and in compliance of the requirements of the rules contained in Orders VI and VII of CPC as envisaged under Order IV Rule 1(3) CPC . In other words, it can be observed that the true purport of service of summons of a plaint on the defendant means the plaint must be a duly instituted proper plaint, in accordance with compliance of the rules contained in Orders VI & VII of CPC , more particularly in respect of the payment of entire requisite court fees, which is certainly a condition precedent in law, for registration of a plaint and to initiate further proceedings on the plaint, even for issuance of summons to the defendant. This Court finds that the Commercial Court committed serious error in holding that the presentation of plaint with deficit court fees cannot be taken as a major defect in institution of suit, whereas the legal purport is that the payment of court fees is must for registration of plaint and the plaint is not liable to be registered even, nor is a triable suit before the court of law at all, unless the full court fees is not paid thereupon. 22. 22. Thus, allowing to calculate the time limit for filing written statement of such a defective plaint, which is untenable in law, would not be the correct view and the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC , which operate mandatorily for commercial nature of suit(s), may not be construed in such way as has been done by the Commercial Court. The equity of justice demands that defendant should have been asked to submit written statement, when the plaintiff has made-up the deficiency of court fees, so as to put his plaint tenable and triable before the court of law. Therefore, it is held that the date of service of summon of the present commercial suit, on the defendant is the date i.e.15.04.2024, when the plaintiff made up the deficient court fees ofRs.5,02,125/-, and when the same was allowed to be taken on record by the court. 23. As far as not filing the written statement within a period of 30 days w.e.f. 15.04.2024 is concerned, defendant has assigned reasons for such delay in the application filed u/s. 151 CPC and such reasons have not been denied/ disputed by the plaintiff in the reply of application. It is clear from record that the written statement by defendant has been filed before the Commercial Court on 11.07.2024. 24. This Court finds from the record that on 15.04.2024, court permitted to take on record the deficit court fees, paid by the plaintiff in compliance of the order dated 20.03.2024 and then, time was granted to the defendant to file written statement. After15.04.2024, the Commercial Court granted next date i.e.14.05.2024 and then the Commercial Court granted next date directly for 11.07.2024, for filing written statement, since in the month of June, due to summer vacations, the routine proceedings of civil matters in the Courts, remained suspended. This Court finds that the outer time limit of 120 days w.e.f. 15.04.2024, does not expire before 11.07.2024, the defendant has filed written statement within statutory timeline of 120 days. Hence, the condonation of delayed period beyond 30 days but within 120 days, in such peculiar facts and circumstances, is well within the power and jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. Nevertheless, for filing written statement beyond the period of 30 days, the defendant can be saddled with an exemplary cost and plaintiff can be compensated by awarding such cost. 25. Hence, the condonation of delayed period beyond 30 days but within 120 days, in such peculiar facts and circumstances, is well within the power and jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. Nevertheless, for filing written statement beyond the period of 30 days, the defendant can be saddled with an exemplary cost and plaintiff can be compensated by awarding such cost. 25. The outcome of discussions made hereinabove, in the foregoing paragraphs, is that the timeline for filing written statement by the defendant to the present commercial suit, starts w.e.f. 15.04.2024 and same be treated as the true date of service of summon on defendant, therefore, the written statement filed on11.07.2024 stands well within timeline of 120 days from date of service of summon. This Court finds that the Commercial Court committed jurisdictional error in treating the written statement of defendant to be filed after expiry of the maximum timeline of 120 days from the date of service of summon, counting it from 20.02.2024, instead of 15.04.2024. 26. This Court is of the view that the analogy, reasonings and circumstances obtaining in the present case, due to which the period for filing written statement by the defendant has been treated to be commenced w.e.f. 15.04.2024 when the plaintiff made up the deficit court fees, neither dilute or frustrate the aim and object of promulgation of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and various amendments to CPC and insertion of additional rules to the Code, nor violate the object of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 , to put the trial of commercial dispute at fast-track and to resolve the dispute expeditiously, as also does not infringe the proposition of law to construe the provisions of Commercial Courts Act, in a strict sense. 27. Thus, it is held that the Commercial Court committed manifest illegality, jurisdictional error and perversity in declining to take written statement on record, treating the same to be filed after expiry of the mandatory timeline of 120 days from the date of service of summon. 28. As a final result, the impugned order dated 26.09.2024 cannot be allowed to sustain, since same suffers from manifest illegality and jurisdictional error, as also leads to irreparable loss & injustice to the petitioner-defendant, therefore, same is hereby quashed and set aside. 28. As a final result, the impugned order dated 26.09.2024 cannot be allowed to sustain, since same suffers from manifest illegality and jurisdictional error, as also leads to irreparable loss & injustice to the petitioner-defendant, therefore, same is hereby quashed and set aside. The written statement submitted by petitioner-defendant on 11.07.2024 is allowed to be taken on record, subject to payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- by the petitioner-defendant to the respondent-plaintiff. 29. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. 30. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.