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

In brief

The question

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

The court held

The High Court set aside the Trial Court's order, holding that the written statements were filed within the 120-day maximum limit computed from the date of valid service (receipt of plaint/documents)

It also directed

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

01Facts

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

¶ 3.2

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

¶ 3.3, 29

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

¶ 3.4-3.5

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

¶ 3.5, 37

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

¶ 2, 3.8

02Issues

i.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

¶ 23, 30

ii.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

¶ 25, 41

03Law Applied

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

¶ 20-21

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

¶ 22

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

¶ 10, 31

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

¶ 43

04Reasoning

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

¶ 25, 38

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

¶ 29, 32

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

¶ 33, 39

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

¶ 41-42

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

¶ 42-45

05Holding

The High Court set aside the Trial Court's order, holding that the written statements were filed within the 120-day maximum limit computed from the date of valid service (receipt of plaint/documents)

¶ 38-40, 45

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

¶ 46

LawLens.Bombay High Court

Original Court PDF