6. Mr. Swetank Shantanu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
however points-out that in the said decision, the Division Bench has
upheld the decision of a commercial court in a commercial suit, to say
that an application under section 8 of the A&C Act would not lie after
the right of a party to file written statement has been closed. It is
pointed-out however, that a perusal of the impugned order in the
present case would show that in this case, the application under
section 8 of A&C Act was filed and 'declined' before the right to file
written statement was closed, though by the self-same order.
6. Subsequently, another Division Bench in M/s Hitachi Payments
Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sh. Shreyans Jain & Anr.2 while reiterating the
observations in SPML Infra Ltd. (supra), also referred to the decision of a
coordinate Bench in Ranjana Bhasin vs. Surender Singh3, wherein it was
held that an application under Section 8 of the A&C Act is not maintainable
if filed beyond the period prescribed for filing of the written statement.
3. Placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in SPML Infra
Ltd. vs. Trisquare Switchgears Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1914
and Ranjana Bhasin vs. Surender Singh, 2024:DHC:499-DB, he
This is a digitally signed order.