Service of summons with the plaint triggers the mandatory 120-day limit for filing commercial written statements.

The Respondent/Plaintiff filed three Commercial Original Suits (COS Nos. 7, 8, and 9 of 2025) against the Petitioners/Defendants for recovery of money under a contractual arrangement

Summons were served on Defendants 1 and 4 on 04.02.2025, and on Defendants 2 and 3 on 07.02.2025

The Defendants filed their Vakalatnama on 19.03.2025 and requested a complete set of suit documents, which were subsequently provided

On 26.06.2025, the Commercial Court at Hyderabad passed identical docket orders forfeiting the Defendants' right to file Written Statements, observing that the statutory period of 120 days had expired on 04.06.2025 and 07.06.2025 respectively

The Petitioners challenged these orders via Civil Revision Petitions, contending that the limitation period should only commence from 19.03.2025, the date they received the complete set of documents, as service without documents is not "meaningful service"

1. Whether the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CCA), permits the filing of a Written Statement beyond the mandatory 120-day cap

2. Whether the limitation period for filing a Written Statement is triggered solely by the service of summons and the Plaint, or whether it can be broken down into service of the Plaint and subsequent service of documents

Order V Rule 1(1) and Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, as amended by the CCA, which stipulates a mandatory 120-day window from the date of service of summons for filing a Written Statement, after which the right is forfeited

Order VI Rules 1 and 2, which define "Pleading" as a concise statement of material facts, excluding evidence

Distinguished "Plaint" as a stand-alone pleading under Order VII from provisions like Order XI Rule 1 and Order XXXVII Rule 3, which explicitly require the service of "annexures and documents"

The court followed the mandatory precedent in SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which prohibits the use of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to extend commercial timelines

The court also invoked the "Mischief Rule" (Heydon’s Case) to interpret the CCA as an instrument to suppress procedural delays and advance the remedy of speedy disposal

The Court reasoned that the statutory trigger for the 120-day limitation is the "service of summons" and not the receipt of annexed documents

It observed that the legislature consciously used the term "Plaint" (a concise statement of material facts) in Order V and VIII, while specifically adding "documents" or "annexures" in other provisions like Order XI (Discovery) or Order XXXVII (Summary Suits); thus, a Plaint is complete for the purpose of triggering limitation even without annexed evidence

The Court rejected the Petitioners' argument that the clock should restart upon receiving documents, noting that such an "arbitrary aberration" would "de-fang" the CCA and defeat its objective of speedy resolution

The Court emphasized that while the first 30 days are a right, the subsequent 90-day extension is discretionary and requires a formal application with recorded reasons; it is not an automatic entitlement

Finally, the Court held that the maxim Dura lex sed lex (the law is harsh, but it is the law) applies to the strict timelines of the CCA, and courts cannot "sugarcoat" these mandates with "kindness" or inherent powers

It held that the 120-day aggregate period for filing a Written Statement in a Commercial Suit is mandatory and non-extendable

The Court concluded that the limitation period commences upon service of summons along with the Plaint, and the absence of annexures or documents does not halt or restart the limitation clock

Consequently, the Defendants' right to file a Written Statement was validly forfeited upon the expiry of 120 days from the initial service of summons