Order VIII Rule 9 CPC is inapplicable to commercial suits except under specific court-directed exigencies.

The Petitioner (Defendant) sought leave from the Principal Commercial Court, Egmore, to file an additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC to include a specific plea of forgery regarding documents filed with the plaint

The Petitioner claimed they discovered the alleged forgery only after filing the initial written statement

The Commercial Court dismissed the application (I.A. No. 5 of 2024), citing the delay since the initial filing in 2022 and noting that the disputed documents were available from the suit's inception

The Petitioner challenged this dismissal via a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution

The Court interpreted the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, specifically Section 21, which grants the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws

The Court applied the amended provisions of the CPC as applicable to commercial suits, including Order XI Rules 3, 4, and 5 regarding disclosure, inspection, and production of documents

The Court relied on the mandatory 120-day outer limit for filing written statements in commercial disputes to emphasize the legislative intent for speedy disposal

The Court also referenced the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 CPC to meet the ends of justice in specific exigencies

The Court reasoned that the Commercial Courts Act is a "self-contained code" designed for accelerated adjudication

Allowing applications under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC would permit parties to circumvent the mandatory 120-day deadline for written statements, thereby defeating the Act’s primary objective of speedy disposal

The Court observed that the Petitioner had already denied the execution of the documents in the initial written statement; thus, a specific plea of forgery could be addressed through cross-examination and arguments without needing additional pleadings

While the Court held that Rule 9 is generally inapplicable to commercial suits to prevent procedural delays, it clarified that the Court may suo motu direct additional pleadings under Section 151 CPC in rare exigencies, such as responding to an amended plaint or substitution of legal heirs

The Court affirmed the Court's inherent power under Section 151 CPC to require additional statements in specific, limited exigencies

The Court held that the Petitioner retains the right to raise the plea of forgery during the trial based on their initial denial of document execution

No costs were awarded