P&H HC Restores Commercial-Suit Defendant’s Defence After Trial Court Struck Written Statement It Had Accepted Without Objection

The respondent filed a commercial recovery suit on 9 May 2024.

After the petitioner-defendant’s ex parte proceedings were set aside, the trial court directed the plaintiff to supply requested documents.

The defendant filed a written statement on 14 July 2025; the court accepted it, the plaintiff received a copy, and the matter was adjourned for replication.

On 1 August 2025, the plaintiff sought to strike the defence because the written statement had been filed beyond 120 days.

The trial court allowed that application on 8 April 2026, and the defendant challenged the order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the amended Order V Rule 1 and Order VIII Rules 1 and 10 CPC, a defendant in a commercial suit ordinarily must file a written statement within 30 days, with a further period of up to 90 days available for recorded reasons; after 120 days, the right is forfeited and the court cannot accept the statement.

The judgment also refers to Desh Raj v. Balkishan (2020) 2 SCC 708 and A.K. Ghosh & Co. v. Biman Bose, 2026 SCC OnLine 1321, concerning the applicable time limits.

Section 151 CPC preserves inherent powers to secure justice or prevent abuse of process, but those powers cannot override statutory provisions or replace remedies otherwise available.

A court may recall its order in limited circumstances, including patent lack of jurisdiction, fraud or collusion, a prejudicial mistake by the court, or an order made in ignorance that a necessary party was unserved or deceased; recall is not generally available for a ground that could have been raised earlier.

The High Court acknowledged the mandatory 120-day limit for filing a written statement in a commercial suit.

However, it held that the trial court had accepted the written statement on 14 July 2025, supplied a copy to the plaintiff, and adjourned the matter for replication without objection from the plaintiff.

The later order striking the defence effectively recalled the earlier order, but the trial court identified no circumstance that would justify recall under the limited principles governing Section 151 CPC.

In those circumstances, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by revisiting its earlier order and removing the accepted written statement from the record.

Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.