JUDGMENT : (V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.) The challenge in this appeal under Section 13(1A)of the Commercial Courts Act , 2015 read with Order 41 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, is to the judgment/decree dated 15.11.2022 in COM.OS No.372/2021, whereby the learned LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (Exclusive Commercial Court) at Bengaluru (CCH-88) (‘the Trial Court’ for short) has decreed the suit filed by the Respondent No.1/plaintiff by stating in Paragraph-25 as under:- “25. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs. The Defendant no.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,78,03,090/- (Ruees One Crore Seventy Eight Lakhs Three Thousand Ninety Only) to the plaintiff with future interest at 9% per annum from the date of suit till realization. The Defendant No.2 is directed to pay Rs.07,06,900/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Six Thousand and Nine Hundred only) to the plaintiff with future interest at 9% per annum from the date of suit till realization. Further, the Advocate for the plaintiff is directed to file Memorandum of Cost before the Office within 5 days from today. Draw decree accordingly.” 2. The facts as noted from the record are, the Respondent No.1 had taken the dealership of the appellant’s products for promoting their CFMOTO Motor Cycles. As such, on giving vide advertisements and ads in the leading newspapers, assured Respondent No.1 that, they would provide all-round support for business development in order to boost their sales through Respondent No.1’s dealership. Pursuant to the application submitted to the Appellant-M/s. Anvitha Auto Tech Works Private Limited (in short, ‘Company’), who had requested the Respondent No.1 to remit a sum of Rs.20.00 Lakhs towards the security deposit for providing two dealerships herein Bengaluru Area, the Respondent No.1, accordingly, remitted Rs.20.00 Lakhs (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) on 09.08.2019. 3. The case of the Respondent No.1 before the Trial Court was that, after entering a rental agreement, it has also invested a sum of Rs.23,80,456/- towards the Interior Decoration, Fitting and Fixtures, Electronic Gadgets, Electricals and Lightings etc., which require for running of Dealership. It was also personally visited by the CEO of the appellant-Company, who appreciated the showroom established by the Respondent No.1 towards the Dealership. It was also personally visited by the CEO of the appellant-Company, who appreciated the showroom established by the Respondent No.1 towards the Dealership. After receiving Rs.70.00 Lakhs (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only) by the appellant from the Respondent No.1, the appellant had stated that Rs.70.00 Lakhs (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only) is to be adjusted towards the supply of spare parts, testing equipments etc. 4. It was the case of Respondent No.1 that, the appellant had failed and neglected to supply any of the testing equipments, spare parts, DMS Software and all other equipments and accessories required for running the Dealership. This has once again caused hardship to respondent No.1. The appellant, has only appointed the Dealership, without supply of any proper equipments, materials, software, which are required for day to day sales and services of the dealership. It was also the case of the respondent No.1 that, it had opened a service center towards rendering of services to the customers by taking a separate premises on rental of Rs.40,000/- p.m., besides they had also paid a Security Deposit of Rs.2.00 Laksh (Rupees Two Lakhs only) for Service Center premises. As per the case of the Respondent No.1, it had completed the Interior Decoration of the showroom and on the further instructions of appellant- official, the Respondent No.1 herein was constrained to make payment to the Pune based Company known as M/s. Conair Equipments Private Limited, (the Defendant/respondent No.2) herein, who is also the authorized manufacturer of Service Centre Equipments of the Company for motorcycles. In any case, the case of respondent No.1 in Paragraphs-9 & 10 of the plaint, was as under: “9. The plaintiff submits that, in pursuance of the application submitted to the Defendant No.1- Company they have requested the plaintiff to remit a sum of Rs.20,00 Lakhs (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) towards their Security Deposit for providing Two dealerships herein Bengaluru area and accordingly the plaintiff had also remitted a sum of Rs.20,00 Lakhs (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) on 09.08.2019 being the security deposit by way of RTGS to the Defendant No.1-Company and the same was received by the Defendant No.1 from the plaintiff on 09l08.2019 a sum of Rs.20,00 Lakhs (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) by way of online transfer under the RTGS. Copy of the payment made by the plaintiff to the Defendant No.1 which was also encashed by the Defendant No.1 of the above said amount from the plaintiff which was also encashed by the Defendant No.1 of the above said amount from the plaintiff which is also enclosed and marked as DOCUMENT-3 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court and the said security deposit received byd the Defendant No.1 from the plaintiff is still subsisting with the Defendant No.1 even today as on this date. 10. The plaintiff submits that, after the receipt of the above said security deposit the Defendant No.1 have send a Provisional Letter of Intent for appointment of Dealership Dated 03.09.2019 to the plaintiff and the said copy of the Provisional Letter of Intent Dated 03.09.2019 is enclosed and marked as DOCUMENT-4 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.” 5. It was the also the case of the Respondent No.1 that, the appellant did not supply BS6 CFMOTO Motorcycles as on 01.04.2020 for the sale of CFMOTO Motorcycles, as the Defendant No.1 did not obtain the license from CFMOTO Chennai and the Government of India and the Transport Department in the State of Karnataka, which is mandatory for selling the above said motorcycles in India. It was also the case of Respondent No.1 that, from 01.04.2020 there was ban of sale of BS4 motorcycles by the Government of India as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and accordingly, the appellant was aware that the Government of India has banned the sale of BS4 Motorcycles w.e.f. 01.04.2020 and only BS6 Motorcycles are permitted to be sold and registered from 01.04.2020. The appellant had only supplied BS4 Motor Cycles to the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and they could not arrange BS6 Motorcycles after 01.04.2020. 6. There are allegations made by the functionaries of Respondent No.1 that, they had suffered harassment, untold hardship and inconvenience due to negligence on the part of the appellant. It is the Respondent No.1’s case that, it had incurred huge loss, for having invested by borrowing money to the tune of Rs.1,85,09,990/-. 6. There are allegations made by the functionaries of Respondent No.1 that, they had suffered harassment, untold hardship and inconvenience due to negligence on the part of the appellant. It is the Respondent No.1’s case that, it had incurred huge loss, for having invested by borrowing money to the tune of Rs.1,85,09,990/-. It was also represented that, the appellant had supplied 19 numbers of BS4 Motorcycles, as the first lot of motorcycles as on 28.11.2019 to the Respondent No.1 for sale of the same to its customers and out of which total 08 motor cycles were sold from 29.11.2019 to 31.03.2020 and the balance of 11 numbers BS4 Motorcycles are currently in stock with the plaintiff/respondent No.1 which are legally not sellable by the Respondent No.1, as there is ban on BS4 Motorcycles from 01.04.2020 and as the appellant-company clearly stated in its email dated 28.07.2020 that they would be giving EURO-5 and BS6 Kits and to convert BS4 motorcycles to EURO-5 or BS6 Motorcycles and as the appellant was unable to supply BS4 Motorcycles as on 01.04.2020, due to which, the respondent No.1/plaintiff had to terminate the contract and the respondent No.1 requested the appellant to take back BS4 Motorcycles, which are currently lying in its godown and return the amount equivalent to the cost of the unsold BS4 Motorcycles, which is Rs.36,79,866/-. 7. A further prayer in the suit has been sought for return of the amount of the cost of unsold BS4 Motorcycles, which is Rs.36,79,866/-. 8. The appellant though had appeared in the suit, had not filed written statement. It may be stated here that the right of the appellant to file written statement was forfeited vide order dated 22.03.2022 resulting in the dismissal of the application filed by the appellant for permission to file written statement. It may be stated here that, the appellant had filed an appeal before this Court being COMAP No.189/2022 challenging the order dated 22.03.2022. The same was withdrawn on 06.08.2024 as in the meantime the suit itself was decided. 9. The Trial Court allowed the suit filed by the respondent No.1, against the appellant by decreeing the same in the manner stated above. 10. The submissions of Sri. The same was withdrawn on 06.08.2024 as in the meantime the suit itself was decided. 9. The Trial Court allowed the suit filed by the respondent No.1, against the appellant by decreeing the same in the manner stated above. 10. The submissions of Sri. Nandakumar.C.K, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant are primarily two-fold; (i) the Trial Court could not have forfeited the right of the appellant to file the written statement in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 [Order dated 23.03.2020] and (ii) that even if no written statement has been filed, the Trial Court could not have denied the right of cross-examination to the appellant of the respondent No.1’s witness. According to him, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo motu proceedings shall be applicable to the facts of this case, in as much as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has excluded the operation of the limitation period wherever applicable between the period 15.03.2013 and 28.02.2022. In that sense, even if the written statement was to be filed within 120 days, the same stood excluded because of COVID reasons. According to him, it was the clear mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of limitation prescribed under General Law or Special Laws, whether condonable or not, stood extended w.e.f. 15.03.2020. So he stated that, in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo motu proceedings, the appellant could have filed the written statement as per the period extended effective from 01.03.2022, whereas the right to file written statement was forfeited on 22.03.2022 itself. He has relied upon the following judgments in support of his submission that the right of the appellant to file the written statement could not have been forfeited: i. The orders dated 23.03.2020 and 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 ii. Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Prakash Corporates -Vs.- Dee Vee Projects Limited [ (2022) 5 SCC 112 ] and Aditya Khaitan and Ors. -Vs.- IL and FS Financial Services Ltd. [ (2023) 9 SCC 570 ] 11. Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Prakash Corporates -Vs.- Dee Vee Projects Limited [ (2022) 5 SCC 112 ] and Aditya Khaitan and Ors. -Vs.- IL and FS Financial Services Ltd. [ (2023) 9 SCC 570 ] 11. His other submission is, assuming the right to file written statement was rightly forfeited being beyond the period of limitation of 120 days, still the right of cross-examination of the Respondent No.1’s witnesses could not have been denied, as the right of cross- examination continues to enure to the benefit of the appellant even on non-filing of the written statement, at least to the extent that respondent No.1 shall not be entitled to the relief as sought in the suit. 12. He stated that, on these two grounds itself, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside. This Court should revive the suit by giving an opportunity to the appellant to file the written statement, so that the suit can be decided afresh. 13. On the other hand, Sri. Suraj Sampath, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would contest the appeal by stating that, the same is misconceived without merit. According to him, the appellant was required to file written statement within a period of 120 days from the date of service of summons. The summons having been served before 17.08.2021 when the appellant had put in appearance before the Trial Court through Advocate Sri. Chandrashekar Patil, the Trial Court had granted time to the appellant to file the written statement. The period of 120 days had, as per the appellant, expired on 17.11.2021, whereas the appellant had filed application seeking permission to file written statement before the Trial Court on 06.12.2021/ 07.01.2022, which is after the expiry of the statutory period. Even from the application filed by the appellant seeking permission to file written statement, the relevant averments in paragraphs No.2 and 3 of the affidavit, do not inspire confidence as has been filed with false facts, which we reproduce as under: “2. I state that the plaintiff has filed the above suit seeking interim relief seeking for refund of amount over purchase of vehicle and to refund the advance amount. I state that the plaintiff has filed the above suit seeking interim relief seeking for refund of amount over purchase of vehicle and to refund the advance amount. I state that, I was residing in Hyderabad and due to covid-19 situation from past two years, I had been residing in Hyderabad and I could not travel to Bangalore in order to give instruction to my counsel and hence the written statement could not be drafted by my counsel. I state that, meanwhile, settlement was going on in the above case and in view of the same, even discussions were held and this kept us in abeyance in filing the written statement. 3. I state that, the reasons stated herein are genuine and bonafide and not interntional. Hence this application to permit m to file my written statement in the said case and the same may be condoned if there is any delay in filing my written statement.” The respondent No.1 had filed a reply to the application, wherein it had stated as under: “2. The Plaintiff Submits that, the Defendant No.1 prayed for time to file Written Statement on 24.11.2021 which is after a lapse of the outer limit of 120 days and the Defendant No.1 filed his Written Statement and the application on 07.01.2022which is beyond 120 days of service of summons on the Defendant No.1 and since the written statement has to be filed within 120 days from the date of service of summons, and filing beyond 30 days of service of summons is delayed filing of written statement,it is crystal clear that the application accompanying the belated filling of the written statement must necessarily have to be filed within the same period, that is, 120 days. 3. The Plaintiff submits that, time lines in a Commercial suit were strict and the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree as the Written Statement and Affidavit have been filed belatedly. The Application for condonation of delay could not have been filed and taken on record on 07.01.2022, after the expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summon, beyond which period, the court has no powers to condone the delay in filing the Written Statement. 4. The Application for condonation of delay could not have been filed and taken on record on 07.01.2022, after the expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summon, beyond which period, the court has no powers to condone the delay in filing the Written Statement. 4. The Defendant No.1 who have filed Two I.A's i.e. U/s 148 and 151 of the CPC and both IA's which were filed and the same is also abuse of process of law and no order has been passed and the Defendant No.1 cannot give options to this Hon'ble Court for considering the alternative I.A's for permission. 5. The Plaintiff submits that, the explanation offered in the application for condonation of delay, that the Written Statement was delayed that, the Defendant. No.1 was residing in Hyderabad and due to COVID-19 situation from past 2 years he could not travel to Bengaluru in order to give instruction to his counsel and hence the Written Statement could not be drafted by his counsel is false and it is to bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that the Directors of the Defendants No.1 Company are husband and Wife and they are having multiple Companies based in Bengaluru, and they are residing in Bengaluru city and taking Care of all their Businesses, it is only to mislead this Hon'ble Court that, the Defendant No.1 claims that, he has be residing in Hyderabad which is not correct. 6. The Plaintiff Submits that, the explanation further offered in the application for Ca condonation the delay that, the Written Statement delayed by the Defendant No.1 was engaged in settlement with the Plaintiff was going on in the above said case is hereby specifically denied as false and the same is incorrect and the same is self styled imaginary of the Defendant No.1. xx xx xx xx xx 9. The reference made with regards to the miscellaneous application no. xx xx xx xx xx 9. The reference made with regards to the miscellaneous application no. 665/2021 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India does not give a right "suo moto" to the Defendant No.1 and to take Shelter on the above said Miscellaneous Application infact, the first defendant who had misread the Hon'ble Apex Court order had conferred the time of 90 days if the litigant could explain beyond his control of not able to file their Written Statement by assigning a valid reason, which is acceptable to this Hon'ble Court and as such the first defendant neither had offered any reason to this Hon'ble Court for extension of time and the plain reading of the entire affidavit does not assign any reason and the First defendant files the above said application before this Hon'ble Court as a matter of his right as though, he has been already granted extension of time by virtue of the above referred Miscellaneous Application 665/2021 and as such the first defendant who has not only mislead himself reading the above said citation and also misconceived in invoking the application under Sec 151 of the CPC , in the above said suit which required to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court, and he had also filed the above said I.A's after Lapse of 120 days.” 14. Sri. Sampath stated, the law is well settled in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SCG Cotnracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. [ (2019) 12 SCC 210 ] , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has said, period of 120 days is a mandatory period and the time to file written statement cannot be extended. That apart he would state that, even the plea of Sri. Nandakumar stating that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 (supra) is a misconceived submission as according to him, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 (supra) shall not be applicable to the appellant for the reason that, the appellant has itself chosen not to file the written statement and in any case, the grounds urged by the appellant for seeking permission to file a written statement are mala fide and not justifiable. He stated that, the Trial Court has rightly forfeited the right of the appellant to file a written statement. He also relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention that it is not necessary that in every eventuality the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 (supra) shall be applicable when a party has deliberately not filed the written statement: i. Ht Media Ltd. Vs. Brainlink International, Inc. [LAWS(DLH)-2021-12-138] ii. Brainlink International, Inc. and Anr. Vs. Ht Media Ltd. and Anr. [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.3570/2022 , decided on14.03.2022 ] 15. He has heavily relied upon the compilation of documents filed vide memo on 08.11.2024 to highlight the following dates: “List of Important Dates: Date Particulars 31.03.2019 Memorandum of Association and the List of Shareholders of the Appellant clearly show the residential addresses of both its Directors as being in Bangalore 03.12.2020 List of Shareholders of the Appellant as on 31.03.2020 issued in Bangalore Annual Return of the Appellant filed for the year ended 31.03.2020 17.07.2021 Suit Summons served on the Appellant in Com. O.S. No. 372/2021 02.08.2021 Board Meeting of the Appellant held at its Registered Office in Bangalore 07.08.2021 Vakalath filed on behalf of the Appellant in Com. O.S. No. 372/2021 07.09.2021 I.A. No. IV filed by the Appellant in Com. O.S. No. 372/2021 seeking for extension of time to file Written Statement on the grounds of paucity of time and inconvenience 08.09.2021 Detailed Objections filed by the Appellant to I.A. No. I in Com. O.S. No. 372/2021, with the verification signed personally by its Authorised Signatory showing him to be in Bangalore and a Memo of Adoption is also filed by the Appellant in respect of I.A. No. II 15.09.2021 The Appellant actively contests I.A. No. I in Com. O.S. No. 372/2021 by arguing and filing Memo of Citations 30.10.2021 I.A. No. I filed by the 1st Respondent in Com. O.S. No. 372/2021 by arguing and filing Memo of Citations 30.10.2021 I.A. No. I filed by the 1st Respondent in Com. O.S. No. 372/2021 allowed directing the Appellant to take back 11 BS-IV motorcycles lying with the 1st Respondent 03.11.2021 Board Meeting of the Appellant held at its Registered Office in Bangalore Notice issued for the Extra Ordinary General Meeting of the Appellant to be held on 10.11.2021 at its Registered Office in Bangalore 10.11.2021 Extra Ordinary General Meeting of the Appellant held at its Registered Office in Bangalore Extract of the Extra Ordinary General Meeting of the Appellant issued in Bangalore Letter of appointment issued to the Statutory Auditor of the Appellant 14.11.2021 120 days are completed from 17.07.2021, i.e. from the service of Suit Summons in Com. O.S. No. 372/2021 on the Appellant 22.11.2021 Both the Directors of the Appellant give their consent whilst in Bangalore to hold the Annual General Meeting of the Appellant at shorter notice on 29.11.2021 at its Registered Office in Bangalore Board Meeting of the Appellant held at its Registered Office in Bangalore Board's Report of the Appellant together with the Audited Financial Statements presented for the year ended 31.03.2021 in Bangalore List of Directors of the Appellant as on 31.03.2021 issued in Bangalore List of Shareholders of the Appellant as on 31.03.2021 issued in Bangalore Notice issued for the Annual General Meeting of the Appellant to be held on 29.11.2021 at its Registered Office in Bangalore Balance Sheet of the Appellant as on 31.03.2021 signed by both its Directors in Bangalore, which is seen in the Independent Auditor's Report dated 22.11.2022 of the Appellant 24.11.2021 I.A. No. 5 filed by the Appellant in Com. O.S. No. 372/2021 seeking for extension of time to file Written Statement on the ground of non-availability of few documents, which are allegedly being traced out by the Appellant 29.11.2021 Annual General Meeting of the Appellant held at its Registered Office in Bangalore and a new Statutory Auditor is appointed for the Appellant Appointment Letter issued in Bangalore to the Statutory Auditor of the Appellant Board Resolution issued by the Appellant in Bangalore to appoint the Auditors and fix their remuneration 06.12.2021 I.A. No. 7 filed by the Appellant in Com. O.S. No. 372/2021 seeking for extension of time to file Written Statement on the grounds that the representative of the Appellant was allegedly residing in Hyderabad and due to Covid-19 situation for the past two years, he purportedly could not travel to Bangalore in order to give instructions to his counsel nor could he provide them with the documents pertaining to the case and hence, the Written Statement apparently couldn't be drafted 15.12.2021 Appellant files its Objections to the Application filed by the Respondent under Section 151 of the C.P.C. to strike off the defence and foreclose all the rights of the Appellant due to its non-compliance of the Order dated 30.10.2021 in Com. O.S. No. 372/2021, with the verification signed personally by the Authorised Signatory of the Appellant showing him to be in Bangalore 03.01.2022 Appellant takes back the 11 BS-IV motorcycles from the 1st Respondent 07.01.2022 I.A. No. 6A filed by the Appellant in Com. O.S. No. 372/2021 seeking for permission to file its Written Statement on the grounds that the representative of the Appellant was allegedly residing in Hyderabad and due to Covid-19 situation for the past two years, he purportedly could not travel to Bangalore in order to give instructions to his counsel and hence, the Written Statement apparently couldn't be drafted by his counsel and that settlement was going on and this kept the Appellant in abeyance in filing the Written Statement 09.02.2022 Objections filed by the Appellant in Com. O.S. No. 372/2021, without any verification signed by its Authorised Signatory, to the Memo filed by the 1st Respondent 22.03.2022 I.A. No. 6A/VI filed by the Appellant in Com. O.S. No. 372/2021 seeking for permission to file its Written Statement dismissed by the Hon'ble Commercial :Court considering the malafide conduct, intentions and dilatory tactics deployed by the Appellant 22.03.2022 COMAP No. 189/2022 filed by the Appellant before this Hon'ble Court challenging the Order dated 22.03.2022 dismissing I.A. No. 6A/VI in Com. O.S. No. 372/2021 seeking for permission to file its Written Statement dismissed by the Hon'ble Commercial :Court considering the malafide conduct, intentions and dilatory tactics deployed by the Appellant 22.03.2022 COMAP No. 189/2022 filed by the Appellant before this Hon'ble Court challenging the Order dated 22.03.2022 dismissing I.A. No. 6A/VI in Com. O.S. No. 372/2021 23.08.2022 Office Objections complied by the Appellant in COMAP No. 189/2022 after more than 4 months of filing the Appeal 29.08.2022 Both the Directors of the Appellant give their consent whilst in Bangalore to hold the Annual General Meeting of the Appellant at shorter notice on 19.09.2022 at its Registered Office in Bangalore Board's Report of the Appellant together with the Audited Financial Statements presented for the year ended 31.03.2022 in Bangalore Balance Sheet of the Appellant as on 31.03.2022 signed by both its Directors in Bangalore, which is seen in the Independent Auditor's Report of the Appellant 15.11.2022 Suit of the Respondent bearing Com. O.S. No. 372/2021 is partly decreed with costs by the Hon'ble LXXXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bangalore (CCH 88) by awarding a sum of Rs. 1,78,03,090/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the suit till realization payable by the Appellant and an additional sum of Rs. 7,06,900/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the suit till realization payable by the 2nd Respondent Suit of the Respondent bearing Com. O.S. No. 372/2021 is partly decreed with costs by the Hon'ble LXXXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bangalore (CCH 88) by awarding a sum of Rs. 1,78,03,090/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the suit till realization payable by the Appellant and an additional sum of Rs. 7,06,900/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the suit till realization payable by the 2nd Respondent 04.09.2023 Board's Report of the Appellant together with the Audited Financial Statements presented for the year ended 31.03.2023 in Bangalore So according to him, the case set-up by the appellant that he being in Hyderabad for two years during COVID period, he could not give instructions to his counsel to file written statement is an incorrect/false stand taken in the application. In fact, the same deponent had filed the reply/objections on behalf of appellant to IA No.I filed by the respondent No.1, on 08.09.2021. In fact, the same deponent had filed the reply/objections on behalf of appellant to IA No.I filed by the respondent No.1, on 08.09.2021. He had also sent communications on behalf of the Company in the month of November 2021 from Bengaluru. That apart, he had participated in the Board Meetings of the Company held in Bengaluru. He stated, as the very basis for filing application seeking extension of time to file written statement and also the appeal is on a false premise that the deponent/Director of the appellant was in Hyderabad and not in Bengaluru, the appeal should be dismissed. 16. On the second submission of Sri. Nandakumar, Sri. Sampath had stated that, the appellant despite appearing in the proceedings, had not cared to cross-examine the witness of respondent No.1. In support of his submission, he has drawn our attention to the orders passed by the Trial Court. According to him, the plea of Sri. Nandakumar that the appellant had the right to cross-examine is a misconceived and an after-thought argument in the facts. He also stated, the counsel for the appellant was within his right to cross- examine the witness of respondent No.1 to the limited extent that the respondent No.1 is not entitled to the prayers made in the suit. For the reasons best known, such an opportunity was not availed of by the counsel as is clear from the order dated 24.08.2022. He seeks the dismissal of the appeal Analysis: 17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we first intend to deal with the submission made by Sri. Nandakumar on the right of the appellant to file the written statement was forfeited. The reasons given by the appellant seeking permission to file the written statement are in paragraphs No.2 and 3 of the application, which we have reproduced above. From the perusal of the reasons, it is clear that the same was filed by one of the Directors of the appellant-Company, who stated that he was in Hyderabad because of COVID reasons and could not come to Bengaluru to instruct his counsel. The reason given do not really appeal us. This is for the reason that, on 06.08.2021, the same Director of the appellant-Company had executed a vakalatnama in favour of the counsel for the appellant that too at Bengaluru. The reason given do not really appeal us. This is for the reason that, on 06.08.2021, the same Director of the appellant-Company had executed a vakalatnama in favour of the counsel for the appellant that too at Bengaluru. In that sense, when the summons were served on the appellant and the vakalatnama was filed, the Director who filed an application seeking permission to file written statement was in Bengaluru. Secondly, the appellant had also filed reply to the IA in the suit with verification signed by the same Director who had filed the application, that too in Bengaluru. 18. An IA No.IV was filed in the suit seeking time to file written statement. Objections to the IA were filed by respondent No.1. Board Meetings of the appellant- Company were held in Bengaluru. The communications were issued by the appellant-Company under the signatures of the same Director. In fact, both the Directors of the appellant gave their consent while in Bengaluru to hold the Annual General Meeting on22.11.2021. The balance sheet of the appellant- Company was signed as on 31.03.2021 by both the Directors in Bengaluru, Annual General Meeting was held on 29.11.2021. An IA No.VII filed by the appellant in the suit on 06.12.2021 signed by the same Director. On 15.12.2021, the appellant filed objections to the applications. The appellant takes back the vehicles from respondent No.1 on 03.01.2022. There is also no explanation why the other Director could not give instructions to the counsel to enable him to prepare and file the written statement. The above proves that, the plea taken on behalf of the appellant that the Director was held up in Hyderabad because of COVID reasons and could not come to Bengaluru to instruct the counsel plea is false and incorrect. In fact the same plea was urged by Sri. Nandakumar contesting the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the right of the appellant to file written statement leading to the Trial Court decreeing the suit. It follows, the grounds both in IA and in the appeal for not filing the written statement need to be rejected. The non-filing of written statement within 120 days in commercial suit is well settled in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SCG Contracts (supra), wherein it is held, the timelines are to be mandatorily adhered to. The non-filing of written statement within 120 days in commercial suit is well settled in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SCG Contracts (supra), wherein it is held, the timelines are to be mandatorily adhered to. It is held that, the Commercial Court dealing with a commercial suit does not have the discretion to condone the delay beyond the mandatory period of 120 days. Having said that, the reliance placed by Sri. Nandakumar in support of his contention on the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 are concerned, there cannot be any contest to the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that, the period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall be excluded for the purpose of computing the prescribed limitation period. But the fact is that, during the period of 120 days after the service of summons in the suit, when the appellant is required to file a written statement, there were no impeding factors which prevented appellant to file the written statement. The appellant has been participating in these proceedings by filing replies to the applications filed by respondent No.1 and in fact had filed application(s) with various prayers, so nothing prevented the appellant. We are unable to satisfy ourselves that non-filing of the written statement by the appellant was for bona fide and COVID reasons, as the Director of the appellant-Company was held up in Hyderabad. The judgment in the case of Prakash Corporates (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has, in paragraph No.28.2, stated as under, is distinguishable on facts. Similarly, the judgment in the case of Aditya Khaitan (supra) is distinguishable on facts in view of the judgment relied upon by the counsel for respondent No.1. “28.2. The judgment in the case of Prakash Corporates (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has, in paragraph No.28.2, stated as under, is distinguishable on facts. Similarly, the judgment in the case of Aditya Khaitan (supra) is distinguishable on facts in view of the judgment relied upon by the counsel for respondent No.1. “28.2. In other words, the orders passed by this Court on 23-3-2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 : (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] , 6-5-2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 9 : (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 799] , 10-7-2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 9 SCC 468 ] , 27-4-2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 17 SCC 231 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 373] and 23-9-2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 18 SCC 250 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 947] in SMWP No. 3 of 2020 leave nothing to doubt that special and extraordinary measures were provided by this Court for advancing the cause of justice in the wake of challenges thrown by the pandemic; and their applicability cannot be denied in relation to the period prescribed for filing the written statement. It would be unrealistic and illogical to assume that while this Court has provided for exclusion of period for institution of the suit and therefore, a suit otherwise filed beyond limitation (if the limitation had expired between 15-3-2020 to 2- 10-2021) could still be filed within 90 days from 3- 10-2021 but the period for filing written statement, if expired during that period, has to operate against the defendant.” 19. Sri. Sampath is justified in relying upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ht Media Ltd. (supra), wherein in paragraph No.10, the Court has held as under: “10. It is thus, more than apparent that the conditions that prevailed due to the pandemic did not actually impact the defendants to prevent them from interacting with their counsel and filing appropriate applications and replies before this court. To that extent, the orders of the Supreme Court in Cognizance For Extension of Limitation (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.” 20. To that extent, the orders of the Supreme Court in Cognizance For Extension of Limitation (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.” 20. The SLP filed against the said order of the Delhi High Court has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14.03.2022 in SLP(C) No.3579/2022, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated as under: “In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the conduct on the part of the petitioners and when even during the pandemic the petitioners participated in the proceedings, which has been reflected in para 3 of the impugned order, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. No interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.” Hence, the challenge to the order rejecting the right of the appellant to file written statement is just and proper and this plea of Sri. Nandakumar is liable to be rejected and we order accordingly. 21. Insofar as the second submission of Sri. Nandakumar that, the appellant even if had not filed the written statement, has not been granted the right of cross-examination of the respondent No.1 witness is concerned, the said submission also does not appeal us. In this regard, we reproduce the orders passed by the Trial Court in the suit as under: 16.07.2022: “Again call out at 1.35 P.M. Counsels for plaintiff and D.1 are present. Both counsels submits they are inspected the documents on both side. Both parties shall directed to submitted there statement of admission and denial of documents by 21.07.2022.” 21.07.2022: “Both counsels are present. Advocate for plaintiff is present and files admission and denial of documents. The counsel for defendant No.1 files adjournment application for filing the statement of admission and denial of documents on the ground that the defendant No.1 is out of stating i.e., Hyderbad. After heard and allowed in part and grant time to file the same as a last chance and call on26.07.2022.” 26.07.2022: Both counsels are present. Advocate for defendant No.1 files statement admission and denial of documents. As per statement of defendant No.1 the document at Sl.No.2 to 4, 7 to 11, 15, 17, 21, 25 to 29, 31 to 34 and 35 are admitted by the defendant No.1. Advocate for defendant No.1 files statement admission and denial of documents. As per statement of defendant No.1 the document at Sl.No.2 to 4, 7 to 11, 15, 17, 21, 25 to 29, 31 to 34 and 35 are admitted by the defendant No.1. Hence, they are marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. As per statement of plaintiff the four invoices, contents of document at Sl.No.5 to 7 are admitted by the plaintiff. Hence, they are marked at Ex.D1 to Ex.D7. For plaintiff evidence, defendant evidence and witnesses by 30.07.2022.”30.07.2022: One of the Partner by name K.Saharabh S/o K.C.Imam Saheb of plaintiff partnership present and examined as PW1 in part and marked at Ex.P22 to Ex.P27 and Ex.P26(a) and Ex.P27(a) and further chief is deferred at request. For further chief of PW1 by 10.08.2022.” 10.08.2022: “Both counsels are present. Memo for payment of stamp duty with tax invoices along with I.A.No.8 Heard by both side. After heard I am satisfied to allow the I.A.No.8. Hence, I.A.No.8 is hereby allowed and the document is taken on record. Kept by for further chief of PW1.” “Again case called out at 3.50 PM. Both counsels are present. PW1 is present and further examined and marked at Ex.P28 to Ex.P30 and deferred at request. For further chief of PW1 by 19.08.2022.” 19.08.2022: PW1 is present and further chief examined and marked at Ex.P31 to Ex.P84. Cross examination of defendant taken as nil as they failed to filed their written statement with in stipulated time. For defendant evidence by 24.08.2022.” 24.08.2022: “Both counsels are present. Counsel for defendant NO.1 field adjournment application for DW1 evidence. No representation for defendant No.2 and failed to lead evidence though granted time. Hence, defendant No.2 evidence is taken as nil. Heard on I.A.No.9 for adjournment by both side. Kept by for orders.” “ORDER ON IA 9 The instant application filed by the advocate for defendant No.1 along with memorandum of facts praying for to adjourn the matter for a period of one week for defendants evidence on the ground that it has incumbent for us to seek time for a period of one week as the Authorized Representative of the defendant No.1 company is suffering from viral fever. On the other hand, the counsel endorsed the written statement is not filed. Hence, defendants evidence taken as Nil. 2. Heard both sides and perused the entire records. 3. On the other hand, the counsel endorsed the written statement is not filed. Hence, defendants evidence taken as Nil. 2. Heard both sides and perused the entire records. 3. After perusal of the same, when the written statement of the defendant No.1 rejected by this court and defendant failed to cross-examination of PW.1 and without any defence in writing of this defendant, there is no any reason to grant the time for defendant No.1 for leading his evidence. Further, the seeking time on the ground that the Authorized Representative is suffering from viral fever but no any supporting medical documents produced by the defendant No.1 along with this bottegapplication. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and perused the entire records, this court feels that there is no reason to allow the instant application and it is liable to be dismissed. 2tr Hence, I proceed to pass the following ORDER IA No.9 filed under Order XVII Rule 1 r/w 151 of CPC for adjournment filed by the defendant No.1 is hereby rejected and the evidence of defendant side taken as Nil and posted for arguments on 29.08.2022.” (Emphasis supplied) From the above it is noted that, the documents were filed and exhibited by respondent No.1. it appears even the appellant had also filed documents which were inspected by the opposite party. The statement of PW1 was recorded. The cross-examination on behalf of the appellant was treated as nil. The order in IA clearly states that, the appellant had failed to cross-examine PW1. The Court has rightly stated that in the absence of any written statement, there is no reason to grant time to defendant No.1 (appellant) to lead evidence. So the plea of Sri. Nandakumar that, no right of cross- examination was granted cannot be accepted. It is the appellant who failed to exercise the right to cross- examine PW1. On failure to exercise the right of cross- examination; in view of the documents exhibited in the presence of the counsel for the appellant which remained uncontested, the case as set-up by respondent No.1 in the plaint is justified. The only grounds urged by the appellant on the monetary claims of respondent No.1 are grounds at 39 and 41, which we reproduce as under: “39. The only grounds urged by the appellant on the monetary claims of respondent No.1 are grounds at 39 and 41, which we reproduce as under: “39. It is imperative to mention here that the Defendants are not liable to pay any sums of monies much less the sums claimed by the Plaintiff. The Trial Court without ascertaining the true facts and circumstances has blindly gone ahead and decreed the suit of the Plaintiff. Under these circumstances the suit filed by the Plaintiff ought to have been dismissed by the Trial Court on this ground alone. The Trial Court has failed consider these circumstances and has passed the impugned Judgment. Hence the impugned Judgment is liable to be set aside. 41. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the documents produced by the Plaintiff in support of evidence to their case does not prove that the Defendant is due of money to the Plaintiff. There exists acute misconception and serious miscarriage of justice in the Judgment passed by the Trial Court and the same deserves to be set aside at the hands of this Hon'ble Court.” In the grounds, the appellant do not really contest the monetary claims by justifiable reasons. They are bald averments, without any evidentiary value. The fact that the appellant has paid certain amounts to the respondent No.1 during the pendency of this appeal, justify the outcome. We are of the view, the suit has been rightly decreed. 22. In view of our discussion above, as the appellant has not made out any case for interference, we uphold the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2022 passed by the Trial Court in COM.OS No.372/2021 and dismiss the appeal. No costs. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.