CR-7745-2025 (O [103] Shri Kuma Rajiv Garg Shri Kumar Chandigarh Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] Order date whereby de not filed w days from [2] submitting written s commence book is sup defendant w he had to m application (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA CR-7745- Date of De Kumar Medical Hall through its pa Garg Versus Kumar Chemist III, SCO No.16, Secto digarh through its authorized partner, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Amit Kaith, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Sharma, Senior Ad Mr. Ayush Loomba, Advocate for the respondent. **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of present revision pe r dated 18.10.2025 passed by the eby defence of the petitioner has been iled written statement within the pres from the date of service of summons. Counsel for the petitioner itting that the same cannot be sust en statement as prescribed under ence from the date of service of sum is supplied to the defendant. In the pr dant was served before 09.05.2025 fo d to move an application. It is only a cation that he was supplied comple T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH -2025 (O&M) of Decision : 19.03.2026 its partner …Petitioner , Sector 11-D, rtner, Aruna ….Respondent PANKAJ JAIN ate for the petitioner. Advocate with vocate ion petition, challenge has been laid the Commercial Court, Chandigar s been ordered to be stuck off for havin e prescribed period of 30 + 90 i.e. 12 mons. itioner assails the impugned ord e sustained as the limitation for filin under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC sha f summons only if the complete pap the present case, though the petitione for getting the complete paper boo only along with the reply to the sa omplete paper book along with th 1 oner laid to ndigarh, having i.e. 120 order or filing C shall te paper titioner- er book he said ith the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.24 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-7745-2025 (O documents period pres date of ser the comple upon ratio ‘Yograjsin Limited’, r [3] respondent, clean hand defendant appearance claimed tha itself show prior to the [4] through rec [5] wherein the Chemist III deceptively as the striki application (O&M) ments by the plaintiff in the Court o d prescribed for filing written statem of service of the defendant-petitioner omplete paper book. In order to ham ratio of law laid down by a Co rajsinh Laljibhai Yadav versus M/s ted’, reported as 2026 NCPHHC 134 Per contra, Mr. Sharma, ndent, submits that the petitioner ha hands. He refers to the Order date dant appeared on the said date and arance whereas in an application that they have been served a da shows that the defendant was in po to the filing of the said application. I have heard counsel for the gh records of the case. The present case is a suit insti ein the plaintiff claims to be prior st III” and alleges the defendant of ptively similar trade name of “Shri K e striking of defence of the defendant cation dated 09.07.2025 pleaded as un “2. That the Process Server Summons of the present c at the time of service o ourt on 09.07.2025 and thus the tim statement shall commence not from th tioner but from the day he was supplie to hammerforth his contention, he relie a Co-ordinate Bench in the case o M/s Eco Emission Xchange Priva C 13466. arma, learned Senior counsel for th ner has not approached the Court wi er dated 09.05.2025 to submit that th te and their counsel filed memo o ation filed on 09.05.2025, defenda day prior to 09.07.2025. Thus, in possession of complete paper boo or the parties and have carefully gon it instituted under the Trade Marks Ac prior user of trade name “Shri Kum ant of passing of his business by usin ri Kumar Medical Hall”. So f ndant is concerned, the defendant in th as under:- rver of this Hon’ble Court served t sent case yesterday to the Defendants an ce of Summons the Defendants did n 2 the time from the supplied he relies case of Private for the urt with that the emo of efendant hus, it er book lly gone rks Act, umar y using So far nt in the ed the ts and id not RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.24 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-7745-2025 (O [6] [7] respondent, (O&M) receive the complet Annexures/Documents att Plaint has been attached without Application unde present Application for complete Paper book attached with Plaint, wit able to prepare their Writ In reply thereto, plaintiff plead “3. That on 29.5.2025, the co Attorney but did not file written under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CP adjourned to today i.e. 9.7.2025 on 29.5.2025, no application w not receive the paper book However in the present applicat they received the summons yest whereas the summons alongwith served upon them prior to 9.5.2 that today they had to file writt application under Order 39 Ru delay the matter the present fr Whereas since the day, it came i plaintiff has filed the present ca engaged in such acts in order plaintiff. It is further submitted also, the plaintiff had filed appl notice was issued to defendant appearance in the said applicat that they had not received the apparent that present applicatio avoid any further delay in the m complete paper book to the defen Though, Mr. Sharma, ndent, is right in contending that w plete Paper book along wi s attached with Plaint and only copy ched with the Summons, which is al under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, hence t for directing the Plaintiff to supp ok along with Annexures/Documen , without them the Defendants will n Written Statement.” f pleaded as under:- e counsel for defendants filed Power tten statement or reply to the applicatio 2 CPC and for said reason, matter w 025 for filing of written statement. Aga n was filed by defendants that they d book alongwith annexures/documen lication, the defendants are alleging th s yesterday without complete paper bo with complete paper book were alrea .5.2025. The defendants very well kne written statement alongwith reply to t Rule 1 & 2 CPC just to intentional nt frivolous application has been file me into knowledge of the defendants th t case, the defendants have intentiona der to defeat the relief claimed by t tted here that during summer vacatio application for taking up the matter an dants on the said application. Durin lication, the defendants did not conten the paper book. From the record, it cation is frivolous, however, in order the matter, the plaintiff is supplying t efendants today in the court. ” ma, learned Senior counsel for th that when the defendant has appeare 3 with opy of is also ce the supply ments ll not wer of ication er was Again ey did ments. g that r book lready l knew to the ionally filed. ts that ionally by the ations er and uring ontend d, it is der to ng the for the ppeared RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.24 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-7745-2025 (O before the appearance that they w falsus in u The fact rem the defenda [8] of the peti the Co-ordi (O&M) re the Trial Court on 09.05.2025 and arance, it does not lie in the mouth of d hey were served a day prior to 09.07.2 in uno, falsus in omnibus is not ap ct remains that the plaintiff willingly efendant on 09.07.2025 only. In view of the above, this Co he petitioner would be covered by the ordinate Bench in Yograjsinh Lalji “ No doubt, in M/s. SCG Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Hon'ble Apex Court held that in are concerned, written statemen 120 days and there is no power time. In Sunil Alagh v. Shivraj of 2016 decided on 14.12.2017 a similar issue, where document Delhi High Court held that th running from the date when documents, are supplied. 15. If one goes through th documents were supplied on condonation of delay along w 02.12.2022 Le., about 60 days application under Order 7, R Commercial Court, Gurugram, defence of the petitioner-defenda 16. Even otherwise, it has to b normally be decided on merits a on mere technicalities. It is a su and striking off the defence of a p there is violation of the timeline, 25 and the counsel had filed memo o th of defendant to claim on 09.07.202 9.07.2025. However, at the same tim not applicable to the Courts in Indi llingly supplied complete paper book this Court finds that the issue in favou by the following observations made b Laljibhai Yadav’s case (supra):- CG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2019)12 SCC 210, t at in so far as the commercial disput ement has to be filed within a period wer with the Court to grant any furth vraj Puri & Anr, [CS(COMM) No.149 017], the Delhi High Court was seized ents had not been supplied in time. T t the period of 120 days would sta hen the copies of the plaint and t h the facts of the present case, t on 12.10.2022. The application f g with written statement was filed o ays after the said date. In between, a , Rule 11 CPC, had been filed. T am, therefore, erred in striking off t endant. s to be borne in mind that matters shou its and parties should not be non-suit s a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,29,73,098 of a party, unless the conduct is such th line, would not be justified.” 4 emo of .2025 e time, India. book to favour ade by s. K.S. , the isputes riod of further o.1495 ized of e. The start d the se, the n for led on en, an . The off the should suited ,098/- ch that RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.24 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-7745-2025 (O [9] statement i 09.07.2025 order, closi 120 days o survive and [10] statement o moving an [11] construed [12] [13] disposed of 19.03.2026 ‘R. Sharma' (O&M) Thus, in the present case ment in terms of Order VIII Rule 1 .2025. Trial Court has shown undue r, closing the defence of the petitioner days on 18.10.2025. In view there ve and is hereby set aside. The defendant is granted an ment on or before the next date of hea an appropriate application seeking Needless to observe that noth trued as an expression of opinion on th Disposed off. All pending miscellaneous ed off. .2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable t case, the period for filing writte Rule 1 CPC would commence fro undue haste in passing the impugne tioner-defendant even prior to expiry o thereof, the impugned order cann an opportunity to file the writte of hearing, i.e. 03.04.2026, subject eking condonation of delay. at nothing stated hereinabove shall b on the merits of the case. neous application(s), if any, stand (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 5 written ce from pugned xpiry of cannot written bject to shall be stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.03.24 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document