$~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 1512/2026, CM APPL. 44934/2026 & CM APPL. 44935/2026 TEAM SURGICAL CO. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gurkamal Hota Arora, Adv. versus PNEUMO CARE HEALTH PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL O R D E R % 20.07.2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 28.04.2026, passed by the learned District Judge-Commercial, South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi in CS(COMM) No. 925/2022 titled as “Pneumo Care Health Pvt. Ltd. vs. Team Surgical Co.”, by which the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner was not taken on record. 2. On 12.09.2022, the respondent/plaintiff instituted the underlying summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for recovery of ₹6,91,998. 3. The petitioner filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) seeking leave to defend. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 10.09.2025 allowed the application and granted unconditional leave to defend. On the same day, through a separate order, the learned Trial Court allowed the petitioner to file the written statement within the statutory period. 4. On 14.10.2025, the petitioner filed an application seeking extension of time in filing the written statement, however, the same was not pressed. 5. Thereafter, on 20.11.2025 after a delay of 40 days, the petitioner filed thewritten statement along with the application of condonation of delay under This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 11:38:46 Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. The same however, was dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.04.2026, whereby the learned trial court noted the stringent timeline of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and struck off the petitioner’s defense. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay of 40 days which is within the condonable limit of the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. She further submits that the petitioner, being an ex-distributor of the respondent, whose distributorship was cancelled prior to the institution of the suit required some time to get all the relevant documents, and the same amounts to a bona-fide reason for the delay. This reason has erroneously not been considered by the learned Trial Court. 7. This Court is of the considered view that the delay is within the condonable limit of 40 days, and that in the given case, the petitioner’s right to file a written statement ought not to be closed due to a procedural lapse. 8. In view of the above, the order dated 28.04.2026 is set aside and it is directed that the written statement of the petitioner be taken on record subject to payment of cost, within one week, of Rs. 25,000/- payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Association, Account bearing No. 15530100000478 (IFSC Code: UCBA0001553) maintained with the UCO Bank, Delhi High Court, New Delhi. 9. The present petition along with pending application(s), if any, is disposed of. AJAY DIGPAUL, J JULY 20, 2026/ar/sg This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 11:38:46