CR-2622-2026 Page No. 1 of 5 IN THE HIGH Gourav Mehta M/s D.P. Plaza & An CORAM: HON’BL Argued By:- Mr. Raje Ms. Pre For the DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The pre 21.02.2026 (Annexur whereby the applica 15(3) of the Comme Truth has been allo herein) under Order 2. The fact suit (Annexure P-1 simplicitor suit for r enforcement of the Haryana and in term to be transferred to tried as a commercia also referred to med 3. At a lat seeking permission t Rule 15A CPC [wrong IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARY CR-2622 vs. Anr. Reserved on: March 2 Pronounced on: April 0 Pronounced fully/operative * * * * N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Rajesh Sethi, Advocate and Preeti Bansal, Advocate the petitioners. , J. present revision petition is direc exure P-7) passed by the learned A plication moved by the plaintiff (resp mercial Courts Act, 2015 for placin allowed, and the application filed der VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of t factual matrix, as emerges on peru 1) in question was initially insti for recovery before the Civil Court the provisions of the Commercia terms of administrative order of the d to the Court of learned Addition ercial dispute. During the course of mediation, though the same did no a later stage, the plaintiff moved a ion to place on record the Statemen rongly mentioned as Section 15 (3) o ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2622 of 2026 (O&M) . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents ch 27, 2026 ril 01, 2026 ative part : Fully PTA irected against the order dated ed Additional District Judge, Sirsa, (respondent herein)under Section lacing on record the Statement of iled by the defendant (petitioner of the plaint has been dismissed. perusal of paper-book, is that the instituted in the year 2019 as a ourt at Sirsa. Subsequently, upon ercial Courts Act in the State of f the District Judge, the suit came itional District Judge, Sirsa, to be e of proceedings, the parties were not yield any settlement. ed an application (Annexure P-3) ment of Truth in terms of Order VI (3) of the Commercial Courts Act], ed sa, ion of ner he a on of me be re ) VI ], JITEN SHARMA 2026.04.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2622-2026 Page No. 2 of 5 as applicable to com the defendant, inte intention to fill in lac 4. The de seeking rejection of non-compliance of S 5. The lea plaintiff, and dismis order, leading to the 6.1 Assailin vehemently contend opportunities to lead made to comply with It is submitted that t is clearly an attempt Bench judgment of Kumar Tulsian 2023 Statement of Truth i the facts and stage Court has failed to prejudice to the def Commercial Courts A 6.2 It is furt grave error in dism rejection of plaint, as 7. Having the record, this Cour is whether the learn on record the Statem liable to be rejected commercial disputes. The said appli inter alia, on the ground that th lacunae in the case. defendant also moved separate n of the plaint under Order VII Rule of Section 12A of the Commercial C learned trial Court, however, all smissed the application of the def the present revision petition. ailing the impugned order, learned tended that the plaintiff had bee lead rebuttal evidence and address with the mandatory requirement o hat the application has been moved mpt to fill up lacunae. Reliance has t of the Delhi High Court in Praya 2023 SCC Online Del 6058, to con uth is not to be granted as a matter age of the proceedings. It is further d to appreciate that such belated defendant and undermines the d rts Act. further the contention of Ld. Coun dismissing the application of the t, as pre-litigation mediation is now ing heard learned counsel for the Court finds that the principal issue rned trial Court was justified in pe atement of Truth at a belated stage ted under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. pplication came to be opposed by t the same had been filed with rate application (Annexure P-5) Rule 11 CPC on account of alleged ial Courts Act. , allowed the application of the defendant by way of impugned ned counsel for the petitioner has been granted more than twenty ress arguments, yet no effort was nt of filing the Statement of Truth. oved at a highly belated stage and has been placed upon the Division rayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Raj contend that permission to file atter of course and depends upon ther argued that the learned trial lated compliance causes serious e discipline envisaged under the ounsel that trial court committed the defendant – petitioner for now mandatory. petitioner and upon perusal of sue which arises for consideration in permitting the plaintiff to place stage, and whether the plaint was by ith ) ed he ed as nty as th. nd ion Raj file on rial us he ed for of ion ce as JITEN SHARMA 2026.04.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2622-2026 Page No. 3 of 5 8. Order V mandates that plead is well settled throu Truth is a procedur discretion to permit circumstances of the Smt. Manjusree Sing 9. The Div Ltd.(supra), while in emphasized that th procedural in nature of pleadings in comm or hyper-technical i approach would res adjudication on m requirement of filing ipso facto render th Rule 15A itself indic to disabling the pa appropriate cases, construction leading harsh and contrary defects, including no are curable in natur discretionary and mu factors such as the question of limitat irreparable injury wo principle that proce that technical lapses rights, and each case defect deserves to b er VI Rule 15A CPC, as applicab leadings be verified by a Statement hrough judicial precedents that no dural defect, which is curable in n rmit the defect to be rectified, de f the case. Reference may be made Singh, Law Finder Doc Id # 1816789 Division Bench of the Delhi High C ile interpreting the provisions of t the requirement of filing a Stat ture and is intended to ensure the a ommercial disputes. The Court caut cal interpretation of the provision result in grave hardship, injustice, merits. It was observed that filing or proper verification of the r the plaint liable to rejection. Ra ndicates that the consequence of s e party from relying upon the p ses, permitting the Court to st ding to outright rejection of the pla rary to the ends of justice. The C g non-filing or defective verificatio ature. However, the power to per d must be exercised on sound judic the stage of the proceedings, th itation, and most importantly, y would be caused to the opposite ocedural rules are handmaidens o pses in compliance should not be case must be assessed on its own fa to be condoned. licable to commercial disputes, ent of Truth. At the same time, it t non-filing of such Statement of in nature, and the Court retains d, depending upon the facts and ade to Saptarshi Construction vs. 6789 [Calcutta High Court]. igh Court in Prayag Polytech Pvt. of Order VI Rule 15A CPC, has Statement of Truth is essentially he authenticity and accountability cautioned against adopting a rigid ision, particularly where such an tice, or defeat the very object of that non-compliance with the the ‘Statement of Truth’ does not . Rather, the scheme of Order VI of such non-compliance is limited e pleadings as evidence or, in strike out such pleadings. A plaint was held to be excessively he Court further held that such ation of the ‘Statement of Truth’, permit curing of such defects is udicial principles, having regard to s, the conduct of the party, the tly, whether any prejudice or site party. Reinforcing the settled s of justice, the Court concluded be allowed to defeat substantive n facts to determine whether the es, , it of ins nd vs. vt. as lly lity gid an of he ot VI ed in A ely ch , is to he or led ed ive he JITEN SHARMA 2026.04.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2622-2026 Page No. 4 of 5 10. In the p the year 2019 as a no as a commercial disp Truth, therefore, ar Commercial Courts A file the Statement o also been observed t defendant by permit 11. No dou been moved at a b lightly brushed asid litigation, and partie diligence. However, of any apparent ma non-suit a party, par 12. This Cou Court has exercised perverse, arbitrary, conduct of the plain deserves to be balan 13. Insofar Order VII Rule 11 CP objection of the def 12A of the Commerc Hon’ble Supreme C Engineers Pvt. Ltd mediation is mand prospectively. Furthe SCC 424, it has been date, the plaint is no may be referred to m he present case, it is not in dispute a non-commercial suit and only sub l dispute upon transfer. The require , arose due to subsequent applica rts Act. The learned trial Court has nt of Truth was inadvertent and tha ved that no prejudice or irreparable rmitting such filing. doubt, the contention of the petiti a belated stage after availing mul aside. Procedural discipline is an e arties are expected to adhere to sta ver, the mere delay in curing a proc mala fides or serious prejudice, ca particularly when the defect is othe Court is, therefore, of the consider cised its discretion in a manner, ary, or contrary to settled princip laintiff in not complying with the re alanced by imposition of appropriat far as the challenge to the dismi 1 CPC is concerned, the same is eq defendant was founded on allege mercial Courts Act. However, it stan e Court in Patil Automation Pv d.,2022 (10) SCC 1 that the re andatory only with effect from rther, in M/s Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Lt been clarified that in respect of su is not liable to be rejected on this gr to mediation, if circumstances so w ute that the suit was instituted in y subsequently came to be treated uirement of filing a Statement of plication of the provisions of the has recorded that the omission to d that the defect is curable. It has able injury would be caused to the etitioner that the application has multiple opportunities cannot be an essential facet of commercial statutory requirements with due procedural defect, in the absence e, cannot by itself be a ground to otherwise curable. sidered view that the learned trial , which cannot be termed as nciples of law. Nevertheless, the he requirement at an earlier stage priate costs. ismissal of the application under s equally devoid of any merit. The lleged non-compliance of Section stands conclusively settled by the n Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Rakheja e requirement of pre-institution from 20.08.2022 and operates vt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2025 (9) f suits instituted prior to the said is ground and, at best, the matter so warrant. in d of he to as he as be ial ue ce to rial as he ge er he ion he eja ion tes (9) aid ter JITEN SHARMA 2026.04.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2622-2026 Page No. 5 of 5 14. In the p much prior to the ab be invoked to seek r parties had, in fact proceedings. In such non-compliance of S has correctly dismiss 15. Consequ the permission grant shall remain subject as a condition prece with the matter expe either of the parties. 01.04.2026 Jiten Whether speakin Whether reporta Uploaded on: 01.04. he present case, the suit having bee above said cut-off date, the requi ek rejection of the plaint. Moreove fact, been referred to mediation such circumstances, the learned tr of Section 12A is not fatal to the m missed the application under Order sequently, the present revision pe ranted to the plaintiff to place on re ject to payment of costs quantified recedent. The learned trial Court expeditiously and to avoid granting ties. Ordered accordingly. (DE eaking/reasoned:- Yes/No ortable:- Yes/No 04.2026
been instituted in the year 2019, equirement of Section 12A cannot eover, the record reflects that the tion during the pendency of the d trial Court has rightly held that he maintainability of the suit and der VII Rule 11 CPC. n petition is dismissed. However, on record the ‘Statement of Truth’ ied at ₹25,000/- to the defendant, urt is further directed to proceed ting unnecessary adjournments to (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE

19, ot he he at nd er, ’ nt, ed to JITEN SHARMA 2026.04.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document