OC-4 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Commercial Appellate Division ORIGINAL SIDE AD-COM/6/2026 LA CHEMICO PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS -Vs- DE CONVERTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK -AND- The Hon’ble JUSTICE ARYAK DUTT Date: September 7, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Sitikanta Mitra, Adv. Mr. Keshav Kumar Daruka, Adv. ...for the appellant Mr. Shuvashish Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Debraj Sahu, Adv. Mr. Rabindra Kr. Mitra, Adv. Mr. Tamoghna Saha, Adv. ...for the respondent The Court: This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated April 16, 2026, passed by the Learned Single Judge in application for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”). By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge allowed the application for summary judgment and decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff for a principal sum of Rs. 34,62,672/- together with interest. The plaintiff filed a commercial suit claiming unpaid dues arising from goods sold and delivered to the defendant no.1. Despite service the appellant/defendant failed to file their written statement within the 2 statutory limitation period under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, thereby forfeiting their right to file written statements, leaving the suit undefended. The plaintiff subsequently filed their application under Order XIII-A of the CPC, 1908 claiming summary judgment relying on the invoices and a jointly signed ledger statement and a jointly signed confirmation of accounts dated September 3, 2022. Plaintiff claimed in its plaint that, an agreement was entered into between the representative of the plaintiff and appellants by which, the appellants agreed to purchase goods manufactured by the plaintiff and undertook to pay for the same. According to the plaintiff, goods were sold and delivered between the period 2021 and 2022 aggregating to a value of Rs. 96,33,890/-. The appellants from time to time made part payment between May 2021 till April 2023 aggregating to the amount of Rs. 61,71,218/- leaving a principal amount of Rs. 34,62,672/-. According to the plaintiff, the respondents acknowledged liability and issue confirmation of accounts from the period from April 01, 2022 to September 3, 2022. In such confirmation, the appellants admitted an amount of Rs. 35,25,981/- thereafter, the appellants paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and 13,309/- aggregating to Rs. 63,309/-. Despite demands, the appellants failed and neglected to pay. We find from the records made available to us that, the appellants lost their right to file written statement by their conduct. The suit was instituted on April 8, 2025. On April 29, 2025 defects were directed to be removed which the plaintiff did. The writ of summons was served upon the 3 appellants on May 22, 2025. The appellants did not file any written in the suit. Respondent thereafter filed an application for summary judgment under Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the affidavit the appellant sought to raise frivolous defences. Defences such as the plaintiff being registered under the Micro, Small And Medium Enterprise Act, 2006 should therefore approach the Facilitation Council under the Act of 2006 and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. Appellants also claimed that there were disputes with regard to the invoices. There were disputes with regard to purchase orders. According to the appellants, goods delivered were defective and/or in excess of the purchase order. Appellants rejected a portion of the goods so delivered. The accounts confirmation are not genuine. It is the settled proposition of procedural law that where a defendant forfeits its right to file a written statement, it cannot travel beyond the scope of the plaint. The defence looses the rights to plead positive affirmative fact or set up any counter case or adduce primary evidence to establish independent claim. Therefore, the appellants attempt to introduce extraneous documents and unregistered defences through an affidavit-in- opposition to Order XIII-A application was rightly rejected by the Learned Judge. Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 introduced by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 permits the Court to pass summary judgment without recording oral evidence. 4 In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Single Judge did not find any compelling reason to direct trial on evidence. Learned Trial Judge took into account the fact that, appellants before us as the defendants did not file written statement. Learned Trial Judge considered the objection/defence sought to be raised by the appellants as the defendants to the application for summary judgment. Learned Trial Judge did not find any merits in the defence sought to be canvassed. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the factum of goods being sold and delivered by the respondent to the appellants stands established. Consumption of such goods sold and so delivered by the respondent to the appellants is also established. There is also balance confirmation issued by the appellants. Defence of seal and signature not tallying was disbelieved by the learned Trial Judge. No compelling material is placed before us to establish anything to the contrary than the finding returned by the learned Trial Judge with regard to the balance confirmation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent as the plaintiff did not possess real prospect of succeeding on the claim. In fact, it is the appellants who do not possess any real prospect for successfully defending the claim. Accordingly, AD-COM/6/2026 is dismissed, without any order as to costs. (DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) (ARYAK DUTT, J.) sp3