ORDER : R.Vijayakumar, J. These two revision petitions have been filed by the defendants in O.S.No.88 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi. (A)Factual Matrix: 2.A perusal of the plaint averments reveals that the defendants in the suit have entered into a contract at Thoothukudi for purchase of 2643 bags of laird yellow lentils and 2440 bags of Eston yellow lentils from Thoothukudi godown. After lifting the cargo, since the payment was not paid, the suit has been filed for recovery of the above said amount. 3.The respondent herein had filed the above said suit for the relief of recovery of money for a sum of Rs.49,38,820/- from the defendants with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum and for payment of cost. 4.CRP(MD).No.7 of 2025 has been filed challenging the dismissal of an application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C to reject the plaint. CRP(MD).No.8 of 2025 has been filed by the defendants challenging the allowing of an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 5 Rule 1 of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 wherein the trial Court has passed an order forfeiting the rights of the defendants to file a written statement. The written statement that was already filed after a lapse of 120 days has to be taken off the record. 5.Challenging both these orders, the present revision petitions have been filed by the defendants. (B)Submissions made on either side: 6.According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the summons received by the defendants did not indicate that it is a commercial suit. The copy of the plaint served along with the summons also does not indicate that it has been filed or treated as a commercial suit. Only when the defendants counsel received a communication from the Sheristadar of the District Court on 06.02.2023, the defendants came to know that the suit has been treated as a commercial suit. The defendants were not privy to the return orders passed by the District Court while entertaining plaint. The defendants were not put to notice at any point of time that the suit has been initiated as a commercial suit. The written statement has been filed on the 146 th day from the date of receipt of summons. The defendants were not privy to the return orders passed by the District Court while entertaining plaint. The defendants were not put to notice at any point of time that the suit has been initiated as a commercial suit. The written statement has been filed on the 146 th day from the date of receipt of summons. 7.The learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that the verification of pleadings in a commercial suit as contemplated under Order-VI Rule 15-A of Commercial Courts Act has also not been filed along with the plaint. When a copy application was filed seeking a copy of the verification of pleadings as contemplated under Order-VI Rule 15-A, it was returned by the office of the Principal District Court stating that no such verification has been filed. 8.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners had further contended that in Paragraph No.10 of the order impugned in the revision petition (CRP(MD).No.8 of 2025), the Principal District Judge has only relied upon a return order passed by the office on 09.09.2019 to arrive at a finding that the suit is taken on file as a commercial suit, though the number was given only as O.S.No.88 of 2019. According to the petitioners, the defendants were not aware of this return order and the return order was not made known to the defendants at any point of time. 9.The learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that the trial Court has also relied upon an endorsement made on the docket of the plaint that it is a commercial Court case. However, this docket was not part of the plaint that was served upon the defendants. He had further pointed out that the trial Judge himself has admitted that till date, the suit number is only O.S.No.88 of 2019 and it is not C.O.S.No.88 of 2019. 10.According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Principal District Court at Thoothukudi is not only a designated Court for commercial suit but also entertain regular original suits where the value of the suit exceeds Rs.10,00,000/-. In such circumstances, unless it is specifically communicated either in the plaint or in the summons, the defendants cannot infer that it is commercial suit and that the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 would be applicable to the said suit. In such circumstances, unless it is specifically communicated either in the plaint or in the summons, the defendants cannot infer that it is commercial suit and that the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 would be applicable to the said suit. In such circumstances, the trial Court was not right in invoking the Commercial Courts Act 2015 to declare that the defendants had forfeited their rights to file a written statement and has already taken off the written statement from the record. 11.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners had relied upon a judgment of this Court in CRP.No.4244 of 2023 ( T.V.Krishna Moorthy and others Vs. Kanakadhara Finance and others ) dated 15.03.2024 and contended that when there is no specific averments in the plaint regarding circumstances to take the case out of requirement under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, the plaint should be rejected without issuing summons. In the present case, no reasons have been assigned in the plaint for non-compliance of Section 12-A. Therefore, the defendants were not aware of the fact that the suit was filed as a commercial suit. 12.The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court reported in 2024 SCC Online Del 4844 ( Dish TV India Ltd., Vs. Gulf DTH FZ LLC and others ) to contend that where a suit was directed to be renumbered as a commercial suit, in the normal course, the trial Judge ought to have exercised his discretion under proviso to Section 15(3) of the Commercial Courts Act with regard to prescribing a fresh time period for filing of the written statement. In the said case where the written statement was filed 3 days beyond 120 days, was condoned on the ground that the defendants have given an explanation for the delay. 13.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1877 ( Raj Process Equipments and Systems Pvt.Ltd., and others Vs. Honest Derivatives Pvt.Ltd. ,) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court before which the suit was pending was a normal civil Court and only after it was transferred to the Commercial Court, the suit should be treated as an ordinary suit and the regre of 120 days would not be applicable to such a case. Honest Derivatives Pvt.Ltd. ,) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court before which the suit was pending was a normal civil Court and only after it was transferred to the Commercial Court, the suit should be treated as an ordinary suit and the regre of 120 days would not be applicable to such a case. The learned counsel has also relied upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1966 SC 1631 ( Jang Singh Vs. Brij Lal and others ) to contend that where there was a mistake on the part of the Court, the litigant acts based upon the information of the Court, the mistake of the Court could not cause prejudice to the litigant and he should be restored to the position which he would have occupied but for that mistake. 14.The learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that the defendants were not aware of the fact that the suit was filed as a commercial suit till he received a communication from the Sheristadar of the Principal District Court on 06.02.2023 that hereinafter the suit would be continued as a commercial suit without change in number. However, three years prior to the said communication, that is on 21.02.2020 itself the written statement has been filed, though with a delay on the 146 th day. 15.The learned counsel for the petitioners while making his submission in CRP(MD).No.7 of 2022 had contended that no return contract has been filed before the Court indicating the business transactions. He had further contended that in the pre-suit notice issued by the plaintiff's counsel, it has not been stated that the delivery of the lentils had taken place at plaintiff's godown at Thoothukudi. Therefore, unless such pleadings are available, the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi will not have any jurisdiction whatsoever. There are no records to show that the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi. 16.The learned counsel had further contended that the trial Court has erroneously arrived at a finding that the entire transaction has happened in Thoothukudi based upon some invoices without any written contract. There are no records to show that the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi. 16.The learned counsel had further contended that the trial Court has erroneously arrived at a finding that the entire transaction has happened in Thoothukudi based upon some invoices without any written contract. Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. 17.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff had contended that the both the plaintiff and the defendants are private limited companies. The transaction between them is nothing but commercial in nature. The defendants are very well aware that the transaction for which recovery of money is sought for, is commercial in nature. 18.The learned counsel for the respondent had further contended that there is no provision under the Commercial Courts Act 2015 to put the defendants on notice to the effect that the suit has been filed as a commercial suit and would be governed under Commercial Courts Act, 2015 . The defendants has to gather the said facts only from the plaint averments and act accordingly. 19.The learned counsel for the respondent had further contended that immediately on receipt of summons, the defendants ought to have inspected the plaint and documents filed along with the plaint after obtaining permission from the Court. When there was a negligence or inaction on the part of the defendants in not verifying the original plaint, he cannot now contend that he was not privy to the return order passed by the Principal District Court at the time of presentation of the plaint. 20.The learned counsel for the respondent had further contended that non-filing of the verification of pleadings as contemplated under Order 6 Rule 15-A of C.P.C is only a curable defect and therefore, the same cannot be cited as a reason to treat it as an ordinary suit. 21.The learned counsel for the respondent had further contended that in the plaint it has been specifically pointed out that the plaintiff is claiming interest at the rate of 24% in view of the fact that it is a commercial transaction. These averments were made in compliance with Order 7 Rule 2(A) of C.P.C which are applicable to the commercial suit. Therefore, there is no need to explicitly state that it is a commercial suit. These averments were made in compliance with Order 7 Rule 2(A) of C.P.C which are applicable to the commercial suit. Therefore, there is no need to explicitly state that it is a commercial suit. The suit was not instituted as an ordinary suit, but later converted into a commercial suit. Right from the beginning, the suit has been filed only a commercial suit and therefore, the judgment cited by the counsel for the defendants is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 22.The learned counsel for the respondent had further contended that a period of limitation has been prescribed for filing of written statement under the proviso to Order 8 Rule 1of C.P.C (As applicable to the Commercial Courts Act). 23.In view of the above said facts, under no circumstance, time can be extended for filing of the written statement. On expiry of a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of summons, the defendants forfeit their rights to file a written statement. The trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction as mandated as per the provisions applicable to the Commercial Courts Act and it does not warrant any interference. 24.The learned counsel for the respondent had further contended that as far as the applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C is concerned, it has been clearly stated in the plaint that the entire transaction has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi. Only to drag on the proceedings, the said application has been filed by the defendants. The defendants, having not pointed out the jurisdiction of any other Court, it is clear that it is a frivolous application. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order passed by the trial Court. 25.Heard both sides and perused the material records. (C)Discussion: 26.The dates and events which are relevant for disposal of the revision petitions are extracted as follows: Sl.No Dates Events 1. 09.07.2019 The plaint was presented before the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi. 2. 09.09.2019 The plaint was returned by the Court on the ground that the suit being a commercial suit, without exhausting pre-institution mediation, the suit is not maintainable. 3. 18.09.2019 The plaint was re-presented with an endorsement that urgent interim relief of attachment of bank amount of the defendants is sought for and hence, the suit is maintainable without pre-institution mediation. 4. 26.09.2019 The defendants had received summons. 3. 18.09.2019 The plaint was re-presented with an endorsement that urgent interim relief of attachment of bank amount of the defendants is sought for and hence, the suit is maintainable without pre-institution mediation. 4. 26.09.2019 The defendants had received summons. 5. 16.12.2019 I.A.No.2 of 2019 filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C for rejection of plaint. 6. 21.02.2020 The written statement was filed before the office of the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi. 7. 09.09.2021 The plaintiff had filed I.A.No.3 of 2021 to forfeit the right of the defendants to file a written statement and take off the written statement from the records. 8. 06.02.2023 The communication of the Sheristadar of Principal District Court, Thoothukudi informing the counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants that further proceedings pending in O.S.No.88 of 2019 would be continued in the same number under the Commercial Courts Act. 9. 13.08.2024 I.A.No.2 of 2019 filed by the defendants was dismissed and I.A.No.3 of 2021 filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the trial Court. 27.The Principal District Court at Thoothukudi is the designated Court under Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act 2015. Apart from commercial suits, the said Court is also having original jurisdiction to entertain ordinary civil suits where the suit valuation exceeds Rs.10,00,000/-. The ordinary suits are numbered as O.S (original suit) and the commercial suits are numbered as C.O.S. The Court can take judicial notice of these facts. 28.The plaint has been presented on 09.07.2019. In paragraph No.7 of the plaint, the plaintiff has claimed 24% interest as per terms of the commercial transaction. Except these averments, there is no averment in the plaint to indicate that it is a commercial suit. The learned trial Judge has relied upon two endorsements made by the office to arrive at a finding that the suit was instituted as a commercial suit. One of the endorsement is on the back of the plaint as “commercial court cases”. The other endorsement is the return order passed by the office questioning the maintainability of the suit for not invoking pre-litigantion mediation. It is the case of the defendants that the docket in which there is a reference about commercial court case is not part of the plaint that was served upon him. The other endorsement is the return order passed by the office questioning the maintainability of the suit for not invoking pre-litigantion mediation. It is the case of the defendants that the docket in which there is a reference about commercial court case is not part of the plaint that was served upon him. This fact has not been controverted either by the trial Court in its impugned order or by the plaintiff by producing any material before this Court. 29.When a special period of limitation has been prescribed for filing a written statement in a commercial suit under the statute, whether the suit has been filed as a commercial suit or not, has to be specifically made clear to the defendants. It is the duty of the Court to inform the defendants that the suit has been initiated under the Commercial Court Act. It cannot be left to the inference of the defendants, especially when non-filing of the written statement within 120 days is going to result in forfeiture of their rights to file a written statement. When serious consequences ensue due to non-filing of the written statement within 120 days, the plaintiff or the trial Court cannot be heard to say that the defendants should have understood the pleadings and they should have treated the same as a commercial suit and should have acted accordingly. 30.When the Court has not explicitly made it clear that the suit has been initiated under the Commercial Courts Act, the blame cannot be shifted upon the defendants that they had not inspected the original plaint to find out whether the suit is commercial in nature or not. When the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi entertains ordinary suits as well as the commercial suits, the defendants cannot be blamed. The served plaint and the summons do not point out that the suit is a commercial suit. 31.Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, relying upon Paragraph No.7 of the plaint, had contended that the plaintiff has claimed 24% interest on the ground that it is a commercial transaction, however, Paragraph No.9 of the plaint reveals that the plaintiff has restricted his claim for interest at the rate of 12%. Therefore, the said contention would not in any way help the plaintiff to contend that the defendants were aware of the fact that the suit was instituted as a commercial suit. Therefore, the said contention would not in any way help the plaintiff to contend that the defendants were aware of the fact that the suit was instituted as a commercial suit. 32.In fact, the plaintiff has not filed the verification of pleadings as contemplated under Order 6 Rule 15-A of C.P.C (as applicable to commercial suit). Had that been enclosed to the plaint, the defendants would have been aware of the fact that the suit has been filed as a commercial suit. 33.A perusal of 'B' diary extract of the plaint reveals that the defendants had filed a written statement in the office on 21.02.2020. Three years thereafter the Sheristadar of the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi had sent a notice to the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and the defendants indicating that further proceedings in O.S.No. 88 of 2019 would be continued in the same number under the Commercial Courts Act. This notice has been issued by the Sheristadar by the order of the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin. The Court has not numbered the said suit as a commercial suit in C.O.S.N.88 of 2019, but has only numbered it like any other non commercial suit as O.S.No.88 of 2019. Only to rectify the said mistake on the part of the Court, notice has been issued on 06.02.2023 by the Sheristadar of the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi by the orders of the learned Judge. Therefore, it is clear that the trial Court had admitted its mistake and for the first time, the defendants were put on notice that hereinafter the suit will be continued under the Commercial Courts Act. 34.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in AIR 1966 SC 1631 ( Jang Singh Vs. Brij Lal and others ) in paragraph No.6 has held as follows: 6......It is, therefore, quite clear that if there was an error the Court and its officers largely contributed to it. It is no doubt true that a litigant must be vigilant and take care but where a litigant goes to Court and asks for the assistance of the Court so that his obligations under a decree might be fulfilled by him strictly, it is incumbent on the Court, if it does not leave the litigant to his own devices, to ensure that the correct information is furnished. If the Court in supplying the information makes a mistake the responsibility of the litigant, though it does not altogether cease, is at least shared by the Court. If the litigant acts on the faith of that information the Courts cannot hold him responsible for a mistake which it itself caused. There is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Courts should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake. This is aptly summed up in the maxim: 35.The trial Court either at the numbering stage or while issuing summons or after the defendants had entered appearance, had not informed the defendants about the fact that the suit has been instituted under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act. Three years after the defendants had filed his written statement, the Court has finally informed the defendants that further proceedings in the suit will be continued under the Commercial Courts Act but retaining O.S.No.88 of 2019. In such circumstances, for the mistake committed by the Court, the defendants cannot forfeit their right to file the written statement. Even in the impugned order, in paragraph No.10, the Court has pointed out that, till date, the suit number is only as O.S.No.88 of 2019 and it is not C.O.S.No. 88 of 2019. 36.In view of the above said facts, the defendant cannot be held responsible for not inferring that the suit is a commercial suit and not filing his written statement within 120 days. In fact, the defendants were misguided by the proceedings of the Court. In such circumstances, it would not be in the interest of justice to forfeite the right of the defendants to defend the suit by filing a written statement. 37.As far as the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C by the defendants is concerned, the plaint clearly reveals that the transactions have taken place within the jurisdiction of the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.2 of 2019. 37.As far as the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C by the defendants is concerned, the plaint clearly reveals that the transactions have taken place within the jurisdiction of the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.2 of 2019. 38.In view of the above said deliberations, this Court passes the following orders: a) The impugned order of the trial Court in I.A.No.2 of 2019 is hereby confirmed and CRP(MD).No.7 of 2025 stands dismissed. b)The impugned order of the trial Court in I.A.No.3 of 2021 is hereby set aside and CRP(MD).No.8 of 2025 stands allowed. No costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.