MANOJ KUMAR VYAS vs AASHIANA DWARKA

[2026:RJ-JD:53543]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6279/2026
CNR: RJHC010274502026 | URN: CW / 11530U / 2026
Manoj Kumar Vyas S/o Dwarka Das Vyas, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o E-57, Shasti Nagar, Jodhpur At Present 221-B, Shyam Nagar,
Near B.r. Birla Day School, Pal Road, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Aashiana Dwarka, Head Office Unit No.4 And 5, Third
Floor, Southern Park, Saket District Centre, New Delhi
110017, Through Authorized Shri Jitendra Bohra S/o
Virendra Bohra Aged About 55 Years, R/o Jalap Mohalla,
Jalori Gate, Jodhpur.
2. Sub-Registrar, (First) Office, Through Sub-Registrar,
Jodhpur.
3. Sub-Registrar, (Second) Office, Through Sub-Registrar,
Jodhpur.
4. Sub-Registrar, (Third) Office, Through Sub-Registrar,
Jodhpur.
5. Sub-Registrar, (Fourth) Office, Through Sub-Registrar,
Jodhpur.
6. Sub-Registrar, (Fifth), Office, Through Sub-Registrar,
Jodhpur.
7. Sub-Registrar, (Sixth) Office, Through Sub-Registrar,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kr. Trivedi
Mr. Dilip Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Tatia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
REPORTABLE
Date of Conclusion of Arguments : 20/08/2026
Date on which Order is Reserved : 20/08/2026
Full Order or Operative Part : Full Order
Date of Pronouncement : 30/10/2026
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:52:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)

(2 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:53543] [CW-6279/2026]
BY THE COURT:-
1. By way of the instant civil writ petition filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-defendant has assailed
the validity and legality of the order dated 17.02.2026 passed by
the learned Commercial Court No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Civil
Original Suit No. 23/2025, whereby the application preferred by
the petitioner under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), seeking
permission to take the written statement on record, came to be
rejected and the petitioner's opportunity to file the written
statement was closed on account of non-filing of the same within
the prescribed period.
2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present writ petition are
that the original plaintiff instituted a civil suit seeking a decree of
mandatory and permanent injunction against the present
petitioner-defendant. The plaintiff, inter alia, alleged that certain
agreements had been entered into between the parties and sought
to enforce the obligations allegedly arising therefrom against the
petitioner-defendant. The said suit was instituted before the
learned Commercial Court No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, and was
registered as Civil Original Suit No. 23/2025.
2.1. Upon institution of the suit, summons were issued to the
petitioner-defendant and were duly served upon him. The
petitioner entered appearance before the learned Trial Court
through his counsel, who filed the requisite Vakalatnama and
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:52:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)

(3 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:53543] [CW-6279/2026]
sought time to file the written statement. However, the written
statement was not filed within the prescribed period.
2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that his mother was suffering
from an ailment during the relevant period and, owing to her
prolonged illness, the petitioner could not maintain proper
communication with his counsel, which eventually resulted in the
failure to file the written statement within the stipulated period of
120 days. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under
Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the CPC’), along with the written statement,
seeking permission to take the same on record. A copy of the
plaint has been placed on record as Annexure-1, while the
application filed by the petitioner along with the written statement
and the reply thereto have been annexed as Annexure-2.
2.3. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 17.02.2026, taking
note of the previous opportunities granted to the petitioner for
filing the written statement, declined to grant any further
opportunity. Consequently, the petitioner's opportunity to file the
written statement was closed and the application preferred by him
under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC came to be rejected. A copy of
the impugned order dated 17.02.2026 has been placed on record
as Annexure-3.
2.4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has
invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, contending that the impugned order
has resulted in a failure of justice by depriving him of a reasonable
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:52:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)

(4 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:53543] [CW-6279/2026]
opportunity to place his defence on record. It is submitted that the
delay in filing the written statement was neither intentional nor
deliberate but occurred on account of circumstances beyond his
control. The petitioner, therefore, seeks interference with the
impugned order and prays that he be permitted to take the
written statement on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned
order, contending that the learned Trial Court ought to have taken
into consideration the circumstances which prevented the
petitioner from filing the written statement within the prescribed
period. It is submitted that the petitioner had subsequently filed
the written statement along with an appropriate application
seeking permission to take the same on record and that the
learned Trial Court, instead of adopting a rigid approach, ought to
have afforded him a further opportunity to contest the suit on
merits.
4. Arguments on behalf of the respondents:
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the
petition and submitted that the impugned order passed by the
learned Trial Court is just, proper and in consonance with the
statutory scheme governing commercial disputes. It was
contended that the petitioner was duly served with the summons
and had entered appearance through counsel; nevertheless,
despite availing several opportunities, he failed to file the written
statement within the mandatory period of 120 days prescribed
under the CPC, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:52:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)

(5 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:53543] [CW-6279/2026]
It was further submitted that the explanation furnished by the
petitioner regarding the illness of his mother was neither
adequately substantiated by cogent material nor sufficient to
justify non-compliance with the statutory timeline. Learned
counsel urged that, upon expiry of the prescribed period of 120
days, the petitioner's right to file the written statement stood
forfeited and the learned Trial Court was legally precluded from
taking the same on record. Reliance was placed upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SCG Contracts India
Private Limited v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited
and Others, (2019) 12 SCC 210. Accordingly, it was contended
that the impugned order suffers from no illegality or jurisdictional
infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available
on record, including the impugned order passed by the learned
Trial Court.
6. The learned Trial Court, after considering the submissions
advanced on behalf of the parties and the judgments relied upon
by them, examined the explanation furnished by the petitioner for
his failure to file the written statement within the prescribed
period. The petitioner sought to justify the delay on the ground
that his mother had been suffering from a prolonged ailment,
owing to which he could not maintain proper communication with
his counsel. However, the explanation so furnished did not find
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:52:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)

(6 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:53543] [CW-6279/2026]
favour with the learned Trial Court, which declined to permit the
written statement to be taken on record in view of the expiry of
the statutory period and the previous opportunities already
granted to the petitioner.
7. This Court finds that the explanation furnished by the
petitioner does not constitute a legally sustainable ground for
interference with the impugned order. No cogent material has
been placed on record to substantiate the alleged ailment of the
petitioner's mother or to demonstrate how the said circumstance
prevented the petitioner from taking the necessary steps to
ensure the timely filing of the written statement. The mere
assertion of a family circumstance, without adequate supporting
material or a satisfactory explanation establishing its direct
bearing on the failure to file the written statement within the
prescribed period, cannot, by itself, justify extension of the
statutory period beyond the maximum limit prescribed under the
applicable law.
7.1. This Court finds that the explanation furnished by the
petitioner does not constitute a legally sustainable ground for
interference with the impugned order. The petitioner has failed to
place any cogent material on record substantiating the
circumstances relied upon by him or demonstrating how those
circumstances prevented him from taking the necessary steps to
ensure the timely filing of the written statement. The mere
assertion that the petitioner was suffering from illness and was
unable to contact his counsel, without adequate supporting
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:52:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)

(7 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:53543] [CW-6279/2026]
material and a satisfactory explanation establishing the
circumstances of the delay, cannot, by itself, justify extension of
the statutory period beyond the maximum limit prescribed under
the applicable law.
8. The legal position governing the filing of written statements
in commercial disputes stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in SCG Contracts India Private Limited v. K.S.
Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and Others,
reported in (2019) 12 SCC 210 . In the aforesaid decision, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the time limit prescribed under
Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 of the
CPC, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, for filing a
written statement in a commercial dispute is mandatory. The outer
limit of 120 days, computed from the date of service of summons,
cannot be extended, and upon expiry thereof, the defendant
forfeits the right to file the written statement. The Court is
thereafter precluded from taking the written statement on record.
9. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement, the
statutory period of 120 days prescribed for filing a written
statement in a commercial dispute cannot be extended beyond the
permissible limit merely on the basis of an explanation that does
not establish any legally sustainable ground for interference. The
legislative scheme governing commercial disputes is intended to
ensure expeditious adjudication and to prescribe strict timelines
for the completion of pleadings. Once the maximum statutory
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:52:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)

(8 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:53543] [CW-6279/2026]
period has expired, the Court cannot exercise its discretion
contrary to the express mandate of the law.
10. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to
demonstrate that the learned Trial Court acted contrary to the
applicable statutory provisions or exceeded its jurisdiction in
passing the impugned order. The record indicates that
opportunities had already been granted to the petitioner to file the
written statement, yet the same was not filed within the
prescribed period. The subsequent filing of an application under
Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, accompanied by the written
statement, could not confer upon the petitioner a right to have the
written statement taken on record after expiry of the mandatory
period of 120 days.
11. This Court is conscious of the principle that, ordinarily,
disputes should be adjudicated on their merits after affording the
parties a fair opportunity to present their respective cases.
However, such a principle cannot be applied in disregard of an
express statutory mandate prescribing a mandatory outer limit for
filing pleadings in commercial disputes. The right to a fair
opportunity must operate within the framework of the applicable
law and cannot be invoked to override a statutory bar.
12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Court, and the settled
legal position enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this
Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the
impugned order dated 17.02.2026 warranting interference in the
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:52:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)

(9 of 9)
[2026:RJ-JD:53543] [CW-6279/2026]
exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The petitioner has failed to make out any
ground warranting exercise of such jurisdiction by this Court.
13. Consequently, the instant writ petition, being devoid of
merit, is dismissed. All pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Crt_7 (1763)
S/349
Mamta
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 01:52:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)