JUDGMENT : N. SATHISH KUMAR, J. Challenging the order of the Commercial Court, Coimbatore, dated 21.09.2024, made in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in C.O.S.No.62 of 2023, dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 157 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against the 2 nd petitioner, the present revision has been filed. 2. The suit has been originally filed by the respondent in February, 2021, as Commercial Suit before the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,55,28,089/-. The 2 nd petitioner herein is the 2 nd defendant in the suit, representing the 1 st defendant Company. In fact, after establishment of the Commercial Court, the suit has been transferred to the Commercial Court on 14.03.2023. Prior to such transfer, the defendants had not filed written statement within 120 days as required under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. However, they had filed written statement only in the month of November, 2021, i.e., beyond the period of 120 days as mandated under the Act. When the matter stood thus, the case has been transferred to the Commercial Court on 14.03.2023. Before the Commercial Court, as the defendants did not file their written statement, they were set ex parte on 27.07.2023 and ex parte evidence was recorded on 02.08.2023 and judgment was pronounced on 16.08.2023. Thereafter, the present application has been taken out by the petitioners to condone the delay of 157 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree, contending inter alia that the 2 nd petitioner met with an accident and received a bullet injury accidentally and was admitted in Kovai Medical Centre on 04.12.2022 and discharged on 10.12.2022. Even thereafter, he was not in a position to appear before the Court physically. Therefore, there was a delay of 157 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would fairly submit that, though the written statement was not filed within the period as mandated under the Commercial Courts Act, even then, the petitioners' right to participate in the trial cannot be taken away. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would fairly submit that, though the written statement was not filed within the period as mandated under the Commercial Courts Act, even then, the petitioners' right to participate in the trial cannot be taken away. In any event, the petitioners/defendants ought to have been given an opportunity to cross- examine the plaintiff, which has not been done in this case. Therefore, it is his contention that, though ex parte decree cannot be set aside as written statement has not been filed, the fact remains that the right of the petitioners to participate in the trial cannot be taken away. In respect of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ranjit Singh and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2932. 4. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the reasons assigned in the petition to condone the delay of 157 days, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that, even at the relevant point of time, the 2 nd petitioner had appeared before the criminal Courts in the same campus and the said fact has been taken note of by the trial Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. It is pertinent to note that the suit itself was laid as a Commercial Suit and was pending before the District Court, whereas, written statement has not been filed within a period of 120 days, which is mandatory under the Commercial Courts Act. If any person fails to file his written statement within the mandatory period, he forecloses his right to make his defence. This is the position already settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Admittedly, in this case, written statement has not been filed. Thereafter, the case been transferred to the regular Commercial Court on 14.03.2023. Even thereafter, the defendants were not diligent in pursuing their case and therefore, they were set ex parte on 27.07.2023 and ex parte evidence was taken on 02.08.2023 and the suit has been decreed on 16.08.2023. Therefore, any subsequent development or reason for not appearing before the Court, will not serve any purpose. Even thereafter, the defendants were not diligent in pursuing their case and therefore, they were set ex parte on 27.07.2023 and ex parte evidence was taken on 02.08.2023 and the suit has been decreed on 16.08.2023. Therefore, any subsequent development or reason for not appearing before the Court, will not serve any purpose. Even before the alleged accident in the year 2022, the petitioners' right to make their defence was already lost due to non-filing of the written statement within a period of 120 days. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the ex parte decree should be set aside, cannot be countenanced. 7. However, the fact remains that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Ranjit Singh and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others (supra), has clearly held that “even if a defendant does not file a written statement and the suit is ordered to proceed ex parte against him, the limited defence available to the defendant is not foreclosed. A defendant can always cross- examine the witnesses examined by the plaintiff to prove the falsity of the plaintiff's case. A defendant can always urge, based on the plaint and the evidence of the plaintiff, that the suit was barred by a statute such as the law of limitation. Therefore, notwithstanding an order passed earlier to proceed ex parte, while deciding an application for striking out the defence, it was the duty of the Court to give an opportunity of being heard to the defendants. However, that was not done. As the suit was fixed on 30 th May, 2002, the defendants were entitled to a notice that the suit would be taken up on an earlier date for hearing the application for striking out the defence.” 8. Therefore, even though the petitioners were set ex parte, the Commercial Court ought to have granted one opportunity to them to atleast cross-examine the witness examined on the side of the plaintiff. The proceedings and findings of the trial Court do not indicate that any such attempt has been made. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, though the defendants have already lost their right to put forth their defence on record, atleast they should have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, which has not been done in this case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, though the defendants have already lost their right to put forth their defence on record, atleast they should have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, which has not been done in this case. In such view of the matter, though the defendants have not specifically challenged the ex parte decree, and the matter is now at the stage of condonation of delay, taking note of the fact that opportunity has not been given as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ranjit Singh and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others (supra), this Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is inclined to condone and delay and also set aside the ex parte decree to give one more opportunity to the defendants to cross-examine the witness P.W.1. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in C.O.S.No.62 of 2023, is set aside, and further, the ex parte decree and judgment in C.O.S.No.62 of 2023, dated 16.08.2023, is also set aside for the limited purpose of granting one more opportunity to the defendants to cross-examine the witness P.W.1. It is made clear that the trial Court shall fix a date for cross-examination of P.W.1, and a maximum of two days' time alone shall be given to the defendants for cross- examination. After cross-examination, the suit shall be disposed of within a period of one month thereafter. 10. With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.