KUSHAL JETHI Vs. RAVINDER PARIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No. 1 became served, on 28.12.2018, defendant No. 2 became served, on 27.12.2018, defendant No. 3 became served, on 20.12.2018, defendant No. 5 became served on 20.12.2018, Defendant No. 6 became served, on 27.6.2019, and, defendant No. 7 became served, through, one Bhim Singh. However, defendant No. 4, stood proceeded, against ex-parte on 11.9.2019.

(2.) Written statements, to, the plaint, stands filed, on, behalf of co-defendants No. 3. The afore instituted written statement, on behalf, of co-defendant No. 3, becomes instituted, upon, time, becoming granted, for, the afore purpose, rather under orders recorded, on 11.9.2019. However, the learned senior Advocate, appearing for the plaintiff, submits, that the written statement, instituted on behalf of defendant No. 3, being not taken on record, nor any further time, being granted, to, the other errant defendants, to, hence institute their respective written statement(s). She has made the afore submission, on anvil, of the sub-Section (3) of Section 63 of Commercial Courts Act, (i) wherein any Rule, in the High Court of H.P. Rules and Orders, and, appertaining, to, extension(s) of time, to, file written statement, (ii) and, upon theirs being in conflict, with the provisions of CPC, and, appertaining, to, special regulatory provisions, rather governing, and, regulating the granting, of, the espoused time for, institution(s), of, written statement(s), vis-vis, the plaint, by the errant defendant concerned, (iii) rather holding paramountacy thereupon, the special amendment, appertaining to extension(s) of time, being granted, to, the defendant, and, as made to order 5 Rule 1 CPC, and, also appertaining to trial, of, commercial suits, rather with a rigid bar therein, that, upon expiry, of, 120 days, from, the receipt, of, summons, there being a complete statutory bar, against, further espoused extension of time, to institute their respective written statement(s), becoming granted, to, the defendants, also likewise holding an absolute apposite barring clout, against the defenants' right, to, institute their written statements, to, the plaint. Consequently, she espouses that with there, occurring therein rather statutory contemplations, vis-vis, forfeiture, of, rights operating qua the defendant concerned, to, thereafter seek time, for institution of written statement, to the plaint, hence the instituted written statement, being ordered, to, be taken off the record, and, also no further opportunity, being granted, to, the other errant defendants. However, the afore submission is rejected, as the nature/genre of the suit, and, also the relief, cast therein, visibly appertains, to, relief of damages, arising, from tort, of, libel, and the afore, genre, of, the extant suit, does render it, to, fall, outside the statutory, definition, of, a commercial dispute, as embodied in, Clause (c) of Section 2, of, the Commercial Courts Act. Conspicuously, hence all the afore submissions, reiteratedly become rudderless.

(3.) However, the learned counsel, for, the plaintiff has made a further submission, vis-vis, inapplicability hereat rather the verdicts, rendered by this Court, in OMP No. 67 of 2016 in Civil Suit No. 89 of 2016, titled as Smt. Gopi Merchant versus Smt. Ujwala Chauhan and another, and in OMPs No. 531 2018 and 550 of 2018, in Civil Suit No. 1 of 2018, case titled as Anil Kumar and another versus Smt. Ujwala Chauhan and another, (i) wherein this Court, rather had, made an interpretation, vis-vis, the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, and also vis-vis, Section 129 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: