Jodhpur HC Upholds Rejection Of Man’s Late Written Statement After Commercial-Suit Deadline Expired And Mother’s Illness Claim Went Unsupported

The petitioner, a defendant in a commercial suit seeking mandatory and permanent injunction, was served with summons and appeared through counsel but did not file a written statement within 120 days.

He later sought permission under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC to place his written statement on record, attributing the delay to his mother’s prolonged illness and consequent difficulty communicating with counsel.

The Commercial Court rejected the application and closed his opportunity to file the written statement.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order V Rule 1, Order VIII Rules 1 and 10 CPC, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, prescribe a mandatory outer limit of 120 days from service of summons for filing a written statement in a commercial dispute; on expiry of that period, the defendant forfeits the right to file it, and the court cannot take it on record.

The Court relied on SCG Contracts India Private Limited v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited and Others, (2019) 12 SCC 210, for this rule.

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction does not warrant interference absent an illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error.

The petitioner’s explanation—that his mother’s illness impaired communication with his counsel—was unsupported by cogent material and did not satisfactorily show how it prevented timely filing.

The petitioner had also received prior opportunities but failed to file within the statutory period.

Applying SCG Contracts, the Court held that the written statement could not be accepted after the 120-day limit and that the principle of deciding disputes on their merits could not override the statutory bar.

The Commercial Court therefore committed no reviewable error.

The writ petition was dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of.