In commercial suits, the 120-day limit for filing written statements is mandatory and non-condonable.

The respondent instituted a commercial suit for recovery of ₹39,37,880.64, with pendente lite and future interest at 18% per annum.

Summons were served on the petitioner by email on 6 December 2023 and again on 20 March 2024 at “bhaviksanghavi20@gmail.com”; the Trial Court directed the petitioner to file its written statement within the statutory period.

As the petitioner failed to file the written statement within 30 days, the Trial Court closed its right to file the written statement and struck off its defence on 6 June 2024, while permitting it to seek condonation within the outer period of 120 days.

The petitioner claimed that it first acquired knowledge of the suit on 21 August 2024 and thereafter sought recall of the service order, return or rejection of the plaint, and ultimately filed its written statement on 27 December 2024.

The Trial Court rejected the petitioner’s applications under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Order V Rule 1(1), Order VII Rules 10 and 11, and Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, while permitting the respondent to place an updated plaint and related documents on record.

The petitioner challenged the rejection of its written statement and review applications under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the petitioner was duly served through the email address “bhaviksanghavi20@gmail.com”, and whether the alleged defects in the mode or completeness of service invalidated service of summons.

2. Whether the petitioner could file its written statement on 27 December 2024 after expiry of the mandatory 120-day period prescribed in commercial suits.

3. Whether the Trial Court’s order disclosed any ground for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC.

4. Whether the impugned order suffered from any patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or other infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as modified by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, under which the defendant must file its written statement within 30 days of service and, in any event, within the mandatory outer limit of 120 days, after which the right is forfeited.

It also considered Order V Rule 1(1) CPC concerning service of summons, including electronic service, and the requirement that summons be accompanied by the plaint and necessary documents.

The Court relied on SCG Contracts (India) (P) Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd., (2019) 12 SCC 210, for the rule that the 120-day outer limit in commercial suits is mandatory and cannot be condoned.

Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC is confined to discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason; it cannot be used as an appeal or for re-arguing issues already decided.

The Court relied on S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan, (2023) 13 SCC 515, for this limited scope of review.

The Court held that the email address used for service was connected with the petitioner and had been disclosed by it in statutory filings before the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, including Forms CHG-1 and DPT-3. The petitioner therefore could not disown that address to avoid service of court process.

The record also showed that service was not exclusively electronic, as process fee had been filed for registered post, and the Trial Court had found that complete summons had been served.

Even assuming that service was reckoned from the later date of 20 March 2024, the 120-day period expired in July 2024. The written statement filed on 27 December 2024 was therefore irretrievably beyond the permissible period.

The petitioner had also acquired knowledge of the proceedings by 21 August 2024 but chose to pursue other applications instead of filing its written statement and seeking condonation within the permissible period, which further undermined its claim of bona fides.

The review application merely repeated objections already considered and disclosed neither new material nor an error apparent on the face of the record.

Consequently, no jurisdictional error or patent illegality justified supervisory interference under Article 227.

The Trial Court had rightly forfeited the petitioner’s right to file the written statement and had correctly dismissed the review application, since no new material or error apparent was established.

The petition was dismissed, along with all pending applications, and no relief was granted to the petitioner.