Mandatory Timelines in Commercial Suits Cannot Be Circumvented via Section 151 After Defaulting on Conditional Extensions

The respondent (plaintiff) filed a commercial suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent (₹11,66,480/-) against the petitioner (defendant).

Summons were served on 12.01.2026, but the petitioner failed to file a Written Statement within the 30-day statutory period.

On 16.02.2026, the Trial Court granted a conditional 15-day extension to file the Written Statement, subject to a cost of ₹15,000 to be paid within one week.

The petitioner failed to pay the cost and did not file the Written Statement within the extended 15 days.

Consequently, the Trial Court struck off the petitioner’s defense on 13.03.2026 and dismissed a subsequent recall application on 07.04.2026.

The petitioner challenged these orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether a defendant in a commercial suit can be granted further extension to file a Written Statement after failing to comply with a peremptory conditional order for extension.

2. Whether the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 CPC can be used to circumvent the mandatory timelines prescribed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The court primarily applied the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates a strict 120-day outer limit for filing a Written Statement.

The court relied on the precedent Sara Abode Private Limited vs. Nath Brothers Exim International Limited, which affirmed that these timelines are mandatory and cannot be bypassed using Section 151 of the CPC.

The court also applied the principle that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or manifest injustice.

The Court reasoned that the legislative intent of the Commercial Courts Act is to ensure strict adherence to timelines.

It observed that the petitioner was granted a "conditional extension" which specifically stated that non-payment of costs would result in an automatic recall of the extension.

The petitioner’s failure to pay the ₹15,000 cost or file the statement within the 15-day window meant he could not claim the benefit of the 120-day outer limit.

The Court held that a party cannot enjoy the indulgence of an extension while simultaneously disobeying the mandatory conditions (payment of costs) attached to that indulgence.

Applying SCG Contracts (India) (P) Ltd., the Court determined that the Trial Court had no choice but to strike off the defense as the statutory framework does not permit repeated opportunities despite non-compliance.

It held that there was no perversity or jurisdictional error in the Trial Court’s orders dated 13.03.2026 and 07.04.2026.

The petition and all pending applications were dismissed, affirming the Trial Court's decision to strike off the defendant's right to file a Written Statement.