HIGH IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARY ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gourav Mehta v. M/s D.P. Plaza & An Anr

iled by the defendant (petitioner herein) under Order der VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of t of the plaint has been dismissed.

2. The fact factual matrix, as emerges on peru perusal of paper-book, is that the suit (Annexure P-1 1) in question was initially insti a instituted in the year 2019 as a simplicitor suit for r for recovery before the Civil Court ourt at Sirsa. Subsequently, upon enforcement of the the provisions of the Commercia ercial Courts Act in the State of Haryana and in term terms of administrative order of the f the District Judge, the suit came to be transferred to d to the Court of learned Addition itional District Judge, Sirsa, to be tried as a commercia ercial dispute. During the course of e of proceedings, the parties were also referred to med mediation, though the same did no not yield any settlement.

3. At a lat a later stage, the plaintiff moved a ) ed an application (Annexure P-3) seeking permission t ion to place on record the Statemen VI ment of Truth in terms of Order VI Rule 15A CPC [wrong rongly mentioned as Section 15 (3) o ], (3) of the Commercial Courts Act], JITEN SHARMA 2026.04.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and Page No. 1 of 5 integrity of this document CR-2622-2026 as applicable to com commercial disputes. The said appli pplication came to be opposed by the defendant, inte inter alia, on the ground that th t the same had been filed with intention to fill in lac lacunae in the case.

4. The de defendant also moved separate ) rate application (Annexure P-5) seeking rejection of n of the plaint under Order VII Rule Rule 11 CPC on account of alleged non-compliance of S of Section 12A of the Commercial C ial Courts Act.

5. The lea learned trial Court, however, all , allowed the application of the plaintiff, and dismis smissed the application of the def defendant by way of impugned order, leading to the the present revision petition.

6.1 Assailin ailing the impugned order, learned ned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contend tended that the plaintiff had bee been granted more than twenty opportunities to lead lead rebuttal evidence and address ress arguments, yet no effort was made to comply with with the mandatory requirement o th. nt of filing the Statement of Truth. It is submitted that t hat the application has been moved oved at a highly belated stage and is clearly an attempt mpt to fill up lacunae. Reliance has has been placed upon the Division Bench judgment of t of the Delhi High Court in Praya Raj rayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Raj Kumar Tulsian 2023 2023 SCC Online Del 6058, to con contend that permission to file Statement of Truth i uth is not to be granted as a matter atter of course and depends upon the facts and stage age of the proceedings. It is further ther argued that the learned trial Court has failed to d to appreciate that such belated lated compliance causes serious prejudice to the def defendant and undermines the d e discipline envisaged under the Commercial Courts A rts Act.

6.2 It is furt further the contention of Ld. Coun ounsel that trial court committed grave error in dism dismissing the application of the the defendant – petitioner for rejection of plaint, as t, as pre-litigation mediation is now now mandatory.

7. Having ing heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, this Cour Court finds that the principal issue sue which arises for consideration is whether the learn rned trial Court was justified in pe in permitting the plaintiff to place on record the Statem atement of Truth at a belated stage stage, and whether the plaint was liable to be rejected ted under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. JITEN SHARMA 2026.04.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and Page No. 2 of 5 integrity of this document CR-2622-2026

8. Order V er VI Rule 15A CPC, as applicab es, licable to commercial disputes, mandates that plead leadings be verified by a Statement , it ent of Truth. At the same time, it is well settled throu hrough judicial precedents that no t non-filing of such Statement of Truth is a procedur dural defect, which is curable in n in nature, and the Court retains discretion to permit rmit the defect to be rectified, de d, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the f the case. Reference may be made vs. ade to Saptarshi Construction vs. Smt. Manjusree Sing Singh, Law Finder Doc Id # 1816789 6789 [Calcutta High Court].

9. The Div Division Bench of the Delhi High C vt. igh Court in Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd.(supra), while in ile interpreting the provisions of of Order VI Rule 15A CPC, has emphasized that th t the requirement of filing a Stat Statement of Truth is essentially procedural in nature ture and is intended to ensure the a he authenticity and accountability of pleadings in comm ommercial disputes. The Court caut cautioned against adopting a rigid or hyper-technical i cal interpretation of the provision ision, particularly where such an approach would res result in grave hardship, injustice, tice, or defeat the very object of adjudication on m merits. It was observed that that non-compliance with the requirement of filing filing or proper verification of the the ‘Statement of Truth’ does not ipso facto render th r the plaint liable to rejection. Ra VI . Rather, the scheme of Order VI Rule 15A itself indic ndicates that the consequence of s of such non-compliance is limited to disabling the pa e party from relying upon the p e pleadings as evidence or, in appropriate cases, ses, permitting the Court to st A strike out such pleadings. A construction leading ding to outright rejection of the pla plaint was held to be excessively harsh and contrary rary to the ends of justice. The C he Court further held that such defects, including no g non-filing or defective verificatio , ation of the ‘Statement of Truth’, are curable in natur ature. However, the power to per permit curing of such defects is discretionary and mu d must be exercised on sound judic udicial principles, having regard to factors such as the the stage of the proceedings, th s, the conduct of the party, the question of limitat itation, and most importantly, tly, whether any prejudice or irreparable injury wo y would be caused to the opposite site party. Reinforcing the settled principle that proce ocedural rules are handmaidens o s of justice, the Court concluded that technical lapses pses in compliance should not be be allowed to defeat substantive rights, and each case case must be assessed on its own fa n facts to determine whether the defect deserves to b to be condoned. JITEN SHARMA 2026.04.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and Page No. 3 of 5 integrity of this document CR-2622-2026

10. In the p he present case, it is not in dispute ute that the suit was instituted in the year 2019 as a no a non-commercial suit and only sub d y subsequently came to be treated as a commercial disp l dispute upon transfer. The require uirement of filing a Statement of Truth, therefore, ar , arose due to subsequent applica plication of the provisions of the Commercial Courts A rts Act. The learned trial Court has has recorded that the omission to file the Statement o nt of Truth was inadvertent and tha d that the defect is curable. It has also been observed t ved that no prejudice or irreparable able injury would be caused to the defendant by permit rmitting such filing.

11. No dou doubt, the contention of the petiti etitioner that the application has been moved at a b a belated stage after availing mul multiple opportunities cannot be lightly brushed asid aside. Procedural discipline is an e an essential facet of commercial litigation, and partie arties are expected to adhere to sta statutory requirements with due diligence. However, ver, the mere delay in curing a proc procedural defect, in the absence of any apparent ma mala fides or serious prejudice, ca e, cannot by itself be a ground to non-suit a party, par particularly when the defect is othe otherwise curable.

12. This Cou Court is, therefore, of the consider sidered view that the learned trial Court has exercised cised its discretion in a manner, , which cannot be termed as perverse, arbitrary, ary, or contrary to settled princip nciples of law. Nevertheless, the conduct of the plain laintiff in not complying with the re he requirement at an earlier stage deserves to be balan alanced by imposition of appropriat priate costs.

13. Insofar far as the challenge to the dismi ismissal of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CP 1 CPC is concerned, the same is eq s equally devoid of any merit. The objection of the def defendant was founded on allege lleged non-compliance of Section 12A of the Commerc mercial Courts Act. However, it stan stands conclusively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme C e Court in Patil Automation Pv n Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd d.,2022 (10) SCC 1 that the re e requirement of pre-institution mediation is mand andatory only with effect from from 20.08.2022 and operates prospectively. Furthe rther, in M/s Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Lt (9) vt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2025 (9) SCC 424, it has been been clarified that in respect of su f suits instituted prior to the said date, the plaint is no is not liable to be rejected on this gr is ground and, at best, the matter may be referred to m to mediation, if circumstances so w so warrant. JITEN SHARMA 2026.04.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and Page No. 4 of 5 integrity of this document CR-2622-2026

14. In the p he present case, the suit having bee 19, been instituted in the year 2019, much prior to the ab above said cut-off date, the requi equirement of Section 12A cannot be invoked to seek r ek rejection of the plaint. Moreove eover, the record reflects that the parties had, in fact fact, been referred to mediation tion during the pendency of the proceedings. In such such circumstances, the learned tr d trial Court has rightly held that non-compliance of S of Section 12A is not fatal to the m he maintainability of the suit and has correctly dismiss missed the application under Order der VII Rule 11 CPC.

15. Consequ sequently, the present revision pe er, n petition is dismissed. However, the permission grant ranted to the plaintiff to place on re ’ on record the ‘Statement of Truth’ shall remain subject ject to payment of costs quantified nt, ied at ₹25,000/- to the defendant, as a condition prece recedent. The learned trial Court urt is further directed to proceed with the matter expe expeditiously and to avoid granting ting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. ties. Ordered accordingly.

01.04.2026 Jiten (DE (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE(cid:1) Whether speakin Whether reporta eaking/reasoned:- ortable:- Yes/No Yes/No (cid:1) Uploaded on: 01.04.

04.2026(cid:1) JITEN SHARMA 2026.04.01 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and Page No. 5 of 5 integrity of this document