$~72 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010462712026 + CM(M) 2143/2026, CAV 467/2026, CM APPL. 66619/2026, CM APPL. 66620/2026 & CM APPL. 66621/2026 N R WARDROBE FUSS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohan Swarup, Adv. versus VELOCITY SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shreya Dubey, Mr. Arsh Khan and Ms. Amisha Rathaur,Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL O R D E R % 25.09.2026 1. Through the present petition, the petitioner/defendant assails orders dated 21.08.2026 and 14.09.2026, passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-01), South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi, in CS (COMM) 313/26, titled “Velocity Software Solutions Private Limited v. NR Wardrobe Fuss Pvt. Ltd.” 2. Briefly stated, the respondent/plaintiff instituted the underlying commercial suit seeking recovery of Rs. 62,22,258/- along with interest. 3. During the pendency of the proceedings, on 03.07.2026, the learned Trial Court noted that the petitioner failed to file the written statement despite being served on 05.05.2026. However, the petitioner was afforded 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 29/09/2026 at 10:51:52 liberty to file the written statement within a period of one week from passing of the order. The relevant portion of the order dated 03.07.2026 reads thus: “Ld. counsel for Defendant explains the reasons for delay and seeks time to file WS along with the documents within a week. Let the WS be filed within a week from today with advance copy to the other side, failing which, the right of the Defendant shall be deemed to have been closed.” 4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed the written statement on 22.07.2026. However, the same was subject to a delay of 11 days beyond the initial 30-day period, as prescribed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 21.08.2026 allowed the said application subject to a cost of Rs. 2,00,000/-, payable by the petitioner to the respondent within ten days from passing of the said order. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 21.08. 2026 reads thus: “12. At the same time, I observe that matter is at the nascent stage. The laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing justice and not to foreclose the substantial right of a litigant. Also the fact that the matter should be taken up on merits, I feel it appropriate to allow the application of Defendant subject, however, to costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be given by Defendant to the Plaintiff in form of cheque/cash /RTGS in the name of Plaintiff Company within 10 days.” 6. Assailing the imposition of cost vide the impugned order dated 21.08.2026, the petitioner moved this Court in CM(M) 2025/2026 titled “N R Wardrobe Fuss Pvt Ltd v. Velocity Software Solutions Private Limited”. 7. Meanwhile, when the matter was taken up before the learned Trial 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 29/09/2026 at 10:51:52 Court on 14.09.2026, the learned Trial Court noted that the petitioner failed to make payment of the cost of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in non-compliance of the order dated 21.08.2026 and consequently, the right of the petitioner to file the written statement was closed. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 14.09.2026 reads thus: “In such circumstances, since the application seeking condonation of delay was allowed with costs and which has not been paid till date by Defendant, the right of defendant to file the written statement stands forfeited.” 8. Meanwhile, CM(M) 2025/2026 was taken up by this Court on 15.09.2026, whereupon the same was dismissed as withdrawn by petitioner as by that time the learned Trial Court had already closed the right of the petitioner to file the written statement vide the impugned order dated 14.09.2026, thereby rendering CM(M) 2025/2026 infructuous. 9. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 21.08.2026 failed to establish any correlation between the delay caused by the petitioner in tendering the written statement belatedly and the actual prejudice caused to the respondent, before proceeding to impose an exorbitant cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the petitioner. 11. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 14.09.2026 is bereft of any cogent reasons for closing the right of the petitioner to file the written statement, as the learned counsel for the petitioner duly apprised the learned Trial Court that the impugned order dated 21.08.2026 was subject to 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 29/09/2026 at 10:51:52 challenge before this Court in CM(M) 2025/2026. 12. Heard. Perused the record. 13. A bare perusal of the record reflects that the petitioner did not exercise the liberty granted by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 03.07.2026 by filing the written statement within the prescribed period. Further, it is also evident that the petitioner failed to proffer any cogent reason to explain the delay in filing the written statement belatedly. The aforesaid facts have also been dealt with by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 21.08.2026. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 21.08.2026 is reproduced hereunder: “11. Plaintiff by the instant suit has claimed an amount of Rs. 62,22,258/- along with interest @ 18% pendente lite and future against Defendant. The application of Defendant seeking condonation of delay has been filed in a casual and cavalier manner. The application is premised upon the ground that due to collation of voluminous records pertaining to the case, delay has happened. Further the plea is that Director of Defendant was travelling for professional work in July 2026 and thus filing of written statement was slightly delayed. The same would make one suspicious of the veracity of grounds taken by Defendant, since the application is unsupported with mere bald assertions. The pleas as recorded above do not appeal to reason in the absence of any supporting document. Defendant has not explained the reason of delay in filing WS after expiry of 30 days. The delay is even beyond the opportunity given to Defendant by Order dated 03.07.2026. The Order dated 03.07.2026 granting leave to Defendant to file WS within one week would not restart the statutory period of 30 days.” 14. However, in the interest of justice and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner ought to be given an indulgence to file the written statement, as a matter of last and final chance. 15. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.09.2026 is set aside, subject to the petitioner making deposit of cost of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in 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 29/09/2026 at 10:51:52 compliance with order of the learned Trial Court dated 21.08.2026, within a period of one week from today. It is reiterated that this indulgence is being granted as a matter of last and final chance and in case the petitioner fails to pay the said cost, the protection granted herein shall stand automatically vacated without further reference to this Court. 16. It is made clear that this Court has not touched upon the merits of the underlying dispute between the parties. 17. In light of the above, nothing further survives for adjudication in the present petition. 18. The petition, along with pending applications, stands dismissed. AJAY DIGPAUL, J SEPTEMBER 25, 2026/AS/as 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 29/09/2026 at 10:51:52