WPMS/2343/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 3648 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/2343/2025 on 25 August, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                                     COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures



                                  WPMS No.2343 of 2025
                                  Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Rishesh Sikarwar, Advocate for the respondents, through video conferencing.

3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner/defendant seeks quashing of the judgment and order dated 21.01.2025 and 16.07.2025, passed by the learned Commercial Court, Dehradun, in Commercial Suit No. 252 of 2023, Shristi Medicos vs. Om Medicare.

4. The petitioner-defendant could not be served, which resulted in publication of notice/summons in a daily newspaper on 10.03.2024, wherein the date was fixed for 29.04.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the petitioner/defendant entered appearance through his Advocate on the said date and moved an application requesting for a copy of the plaint, as the notice/summons had been served upon him through publication and he was supplied with the copy of the plaint. When the plaint was not supplied, the petitioner-defendant inspected the file on 08.08.2024 and filed his written statement on 13.08.2024 along with an application for taking the same on record.

6. The said application - Paper No.27C - of the petitioner- defendant was rejected vide impugned order dated 21.01.2025. The petitioner-defendant subsequently filed a review application, which too was rejected vide order dated

16.07.2025. Feeling aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner is before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has putin appearance and submits that the 120-day period prescribed for filing a written statement is mandatory, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SCG Contracts (India) Private Ltd. vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited & Others, reported in (2019) 12 SCC 210.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, however, submits that the facts of the present case are entirely different, and therefore, the said judgment is not applicable.

9. Be that as it may, there appears to be a dispute regarding the applicability of the aforesaid judgment; therefore, the matter requires further deliberation

10. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff prays for and is granted four weeks' time for filing counter affidavit.

11. List this case on 13.10.2025.

12. In the meantime, proceedings of Commercial Court, Dehradun, in Commercial Suit No.252 of 2023, shall remain stayed.

13. Stay Application (IA No.1 of 2025) stands disposed-off.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 25.08.2025 SK