Service of summons without the plaint and its accompaniments does not trigger the statutory timeline for filing a written statement.

The Respondent (Plaintiff) filed a commercial suit against the Petitioners (Defendants) for recovery of charges related to land use

Summons were purportedly served via registered post in July/August 2024; however, the Defendants appeared on August 29, 2024, claiming they received the plaint and documents only then

Both Defendants sought extensions from the Commercial Court, Panvel, which were initially granted on September 26, 2024

Due to the unavailability of the Presiding Officer on subsequent dates, the Defendants filed their written statements on December 16, 2024

The Trial Court subsequently allowed the Plaintiff's applications to take the written statements off the record, holding they were filed beyond the 120-day mandatory limit

1. Whether the 120-day mandatory period for filing a written statement in a commercial suit begins from the date of receipt of the summons alone or the summons accompanied by the plaint and documents

2. Whether the Trial Court can strike off a written statement filed within 120 days from the deemed date of service if specific reasons for delay were not recorded by the Court while granting earlier extensions

The Court applied Order V Rule 1 and Order VIII Rules 1 and 10 of the CPC, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which stipulates a mandatory 120-day outer limit for filing written statements, beyond which the right to defend is forfeited

It relied on SCG Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., confirming the mandatory nature of this timeline

It further applied the principle from Nahar Enterprises v. Hyderabad Allwys Ltd., establishing that valid service of summons requires the accompaniment of the plaint and annexures

noted M/s. Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Aroush Motors, emphasizing that procedural rules should subserve substantive justice

The Court found the Trial Court’s computation of the 120-day period factually flawed. For Defendant No. 1, the Trial Court deemed service on August 29, 2024 (the date of appearance), making the December 16 filing well within the 120-day window

For Defendant No. 2, the Court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim of service on July 24, 2024, noting the postal weight (110 gms) was insufficient to include the voluminous plaint and documents

Relying on the Bailiff’s report of August 21, 2024, the Court held that the filing was timely

The Court further reasoned that since the Defendants had applied for extensions and the Presiding Officer was unavailable for two months, the litigants should not be penalized for the Court’s own administrative silence or lack of specific recorded reasons

Procedure must be a handmaid to justice, especially when the outer statutory limit has not been breached

The Court directed that the written statements of both Defendants be taken on record and the suit proceed on merits. The Petitions were allowed with no order as to costs