KOTHARI FEB Vs. ROHINI ENTERPRISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein - original defendant has challenged an order dtd. 29/11/2022 passed below application Exh.10 in Commercial Civil Suit No.164 of 2022 by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "learned Judge") by which the application Exh.10 filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay caused in filing the written statement came to be rejected on the ground that the written statement was filed subsequent to completion of limitation period as provided for filing of written statement under proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC").

(2.) Short facts emerging from the record of the case are as follows:

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit appearing for the petitioner herein - original defendant would submit that the learned Judge could have condoned the delay by imposing appropriate cost considering the fact that infact there is a delay of only 23 days excluding the period which is provided under 2 nd proviso to sub-Rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order V of the CPC.