Telangana High Court
The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd vs Barla Ram Reddy on 10 April, 2026
*THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
*THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4464, 4465 AND 4466 OF 2025
% 10-04-2026
# The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
.....Petitioner
AND
vs.
$ M/s. B.Ram Reddy Infra,
Rep. by its Managing Partner and Three others
... Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.Sunil B.Ganu, Senior Counsel
representing Ms.Shireen Sethna Baria
^Counsel for Respondent No.1: Mr.Vamsi Velagapudi, counsel
representing Mr.Suresh Bhaktula
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred
1. AIRONLINE 2020 SC 634
2. (1584) 3 Co. Rep. 7a, p. 7b : 76 ER 637
3. 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 358
4. (2019) 12 SCC 210
5. (2020) 2 SCC 708
6. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11369
7. 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7485
8. (2007) 9 SCC 466
9. 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12368
10. 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3403
11. MANU/DE/3089/2007
12. 2006 SCC OnLine Gau 17
13. 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1732
14. (2012) 8 SCC 706
15. (2003) 3 SCC 57
16. (1940) 3 All ER 549
17. (2020) 7 SCC 366
2
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4464, 4465 AND 4466 OF 2025
DATE OF ORDER: 10.04.2026
CRP No.4464 of 2025:
Between:
The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
.....Petitioner
AND
M/s. B.Ram Reddy Infra,
Rep. by its Managing Partner and Three others
.....Respondents
CRP No.4465 of 2025:
Between:
The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
.....Petitioner
AND
M/s. B.Ram Reddy Infra,
Rep. by its Managing Partner and Three others
.....Respondents
CRP No.4466 of 2025:
Between:
The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
.....Petitioner
3
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
AND
M/s. B.Ram Reddy Infra,
Rep. by its Managing Partner and Three others
.....Respondents
Mr.Sunil B. Ganu, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms.Shireen Sethna Baria,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Vamsi Velagapudi, learned counsel representing Mr.Suresh Bhaktula, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.
COMMON ORDER:
(Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. The Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by way of
this Common Order since the three Suits involve the same parties.
2. The Civil Revision Petitions arise out of Docket Orders dated
26.06.2025 passed by the learned Commercial Court at Hyderabad
by which the right of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 (petitioners herein)
to file Written Statements, in Commercial Original Suits (COS),
was forfeited.
3. The petitioner is the defendant No.1, the respondent No.1 is
the plaintiff and the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the defendant Nos.2
to 4 in the Suits. The parties are being referred to as per their
nomenclature in the Suits for convenience.
4. The plaintiff filed C.O.S Nos.7, 8 and 9 of 2025 against the
defendants for the following reliefs:
4
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
(i) C.O.S. No.7 of 2025 is filed for recovery of amount of
Rs.1,01,42,247/- along with interest @ 15% per annum w.e.f.,
2015 to the date of actual payment;
(ii) C.O.S. No.8 of 2025 is filed for recovery of total amount of
Rs.1,11,43,995/- i.e., Rs.70,27,985/- along with interest @ 15%
per annum w.e.f., 27.01.2017 and Rs.41,16,010/- along with
interest @ 15% per annum from 2015, till the date of actual
payment; and
(iii) C.O.S.No.9 of 2025 is filed for recovery of amount of
Rs.5,61,29,426/- along with interest @ 15% per annum from
01.01.2019 till the date of actual payment.
5. Summons was served on the defendant Nos.1 and 4 on
04.02.2025 and the Vakalat on their behalf was filed on
19.03.2025. Summons were served on defendant Nos.2 and 3 on
07.02.2025 and the Vakalat on their behalf was filed on
19.03.2025. The Commercial Court passed three identical Docket
Orders on the same day i.e., on 26.0.2025 recording the date of
service of summons and the date of filing of Vakalats and holding
that the statutory period of 120 days for filing of Written
Statements expired on 04.06.2025 for the defendant Nos.1 and 4
and expired on 07.06.2025 for the defendant Nos.2 and 3. The
5
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
defendants have filed the present Civil Revision Petitions from the
aforesaid three impugned Docket Orders dated 26.06.2025.
6. The Commercial Court decided against the defendants i.e.,
forfeiting the right of the defendants to file the Written Statements
on the prescribed statutory period under The Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC), as amended by The Commercial Courts
Act, 2015 (CCA).
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner/defendant No.1 places Order V Rule 1 and Order VIII
Rule 1 of the CPC to argue that service of summons on the
defendants was not effective service in law. Counsel submits that
although the summons was received by the defendants on
04.02.2025, the said summons was accompanied only with a copy
of the plaint without documents relied upon by the plaintiff. It is
submitted that the service effected on 04.02.2025 hence cannot be
treated as meaningful service so as to trigger the limitation for
filing Written Statements under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC as
amended by the CCA. Counsel submits that the complete set of
Suit documents was furnished much later i.e., on 19.03.2025;
therefore, the defendants were in a position to file meaningful
Written Statement from 19.03.2025 and the statutory time period
6
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
for filing of the Written Statement would only run from 19.03.2025.
Counsel hence assails the impugned Docket Orders and the
finding that the defendants had an effective opportunity to file the
Written Statements on and from 04.02.2025.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/plaintiff
relies on the amended provisos to Order V Rule 1 and Order VIII
Rule 1 of the CPC to submit that the Court loses discretion to
extend the time for filing of Written Statement beyond 120 days
from the date of service of summons. Counsel lays emphasis on
the statements and objects of the CCA which seeks to reinforce
expeditious disposal of high value commercial disputes. Counsel
further submits that the plaint cannot be dissected into plaint and
documents and that the limitation period would run from the date
on which the defendant receives the summons along with a copy of
the plaint even without annexures/documents. It is also
submitted that the defendants did not show any diligence in filing
the Written Statement within the prescribed timeframe and chose
to file the applications at the last moment being fully aware of the
statutory time constraints. Counsel submits that the defendants
did not make any efforts to collect the documents annexed to the
plaint from the Commercial Court at the relevant point of time.
7
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
9. We have considered the arguments on behalf of the parties
with reference to the applicable provisions of the CPC and the CCA.
24.12.2024 The plaintiff filed three Suits against defendant
No.1-Company and defendant Nos.2 to 4, being the
Senior Management and Officers of the Company,
for recovery of money for civil works done by the
plaintiff for the defendants under a Contractual
Arrangement.
04.02.2025 Summons received by defendant Nos.1 and 4 along
with a copy of the plaint.
07.02.2025 Summons received by defendant Nos.1 and 4 along
with a copy of the plaint.
19.03.2025 The defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed Vakalatnama and
Memos seeking complete set of documents in the
Suits. The documents were furnished to the
defendants and the Suits were posted on
21.04.2025 for filing of Written Statements.
21.04.2025 The Suits were posted to 26.06.2025 due to transfer
of the Presiding Officer.
26.06.2025 The Commercial Court, considered the Office Note
and found that Summons was served on the
defendant Nos.1 and 4 on 04.02.2025; that
Vakalats on behalf of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 were
filed on 19.03.2025 and that statutory period of 120
days for the defendant Nos.1 and 4 to file Written
Statements expired on 04.06.2025.
In respect of the defendant Nos.2 and 3, the
Commercial Court found that they were served on
07.02.2025; that Vakalats on their behalf were filed
on 19.03.2025 and that statutory period of 120
days for the defendant Nos.1 and 4 to file Written
Statements expired on 07.06.2025.
8
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
The Commercial Court forfeited the rights of the
defendant Nos.1 to 4 to file Written Statements.
Issue
10. The issue germane for the present purposes:
(i) Does The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC‘), as
amended by The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘CCA’),
permit filing of a Written Statement beyond 120 days?
(ii) Can the limitation provided under the statute can be
broken-down into (i) service of summons along with
the Plaint and (ii) service of documents filed with the
Plaint.
Relevant provisions:
11. Order V Rule 1(1) and Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, as
amended by the CCA with effect from 23.10.2015.
Order V Rule 1(1) – Before the amendment:
When a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued
to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the written
statement of his defence, if any, within thirty days from the date of
service of summons on that defendant:
Provided that no such summons shall be issued when a
defendant has appeared at the presentation of plaint and admitted the
plaintiff’s claim:
Provided further that where the defendant fails to file the written
statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file
the same on such other day as may be specified by the Court, for reasons
9
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batchto be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days
from the date of service of summons.
Order V Rule 1(1) – After the amendment:
When a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued
to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the written
statement of his defence, if any, within thirty days from the date of
service of summons on that defendant:
Provided that no such summons shall be issued when a
defendant has appeared at the presentation of plaint and admitted the
plaintiff’s claim:
Provided further that where the defendant fails to file the written
statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file
the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the
Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such
costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one
hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry
of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the
defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the
Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.”
Order VIII Rule 1 – Before the amendment:
The Defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of
summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:
Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written
statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file
the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for
reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than
ninety days from the date of service of summons.
Order VIII Rule 1 – After the amendment:
The Defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of
summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:
Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written
statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file
the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the
Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such
costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one
hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry
10
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batchof one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the
defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the
Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.
12. The above provisions mandate that the maximum window for
filing the Written Statement is one hundred twenty days from the
date of service of summons. The statutory position needs to be
elaborated a little further.
13. Order V Rule 1(1) of the CPC is only concerned with issue of
summons to the defendant in a properly – instituted Suit to appear
in the hearing of the Suit and contest the same by way of its first
defence to the claim in the form of a Written Statement. The
overlap between Order V Rule 1(1) and Order VIII Rule 1 is to the
extent of the timeframe within which the defendant must file its
Written Statement.
14. It is significant that the time given to a defendant to appear
and answer the claim under Order V Rule 1(1) is not one hundred
twenty days but thirty days from the date of service of summons to
that defendant. The second proviso to Order V Rule 1(1) which
permits the defendant to file the Written Statement on a day
beyond thirty days was substituted by the Special Amendment for
Commercial disputes of a Specified Value w.r.e.f. 23.10.2015
11
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
capping the time for filing of a Written Statement to one hundred
twenty days from the date of service of summons.
15. It is further significant that the amended second proviso to
Order V Rule 1(1) gives a quantum but a one-time extension for
filing of the Written Statement from thirty days to one hundred
twenty days from the date of service of summons. The second
proviso puts a lock-in period of one hundred twenty days for filing
of the Written Statement by the express stipulation that
“…the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement
and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on
record…”.
16. Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC mirrors Order V Rule 1(1) in the
matter of timeframes since it reiterates the jump from thirty days
to one hundred twenty days for filing of the Written Statement for
Commercial Suits and closes the extended time of one hundred
twenty days for filing a Written Statement to Commercial Suits,
once and for all.
17. The proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC expressly
requires the defendant to seek the Court’s leave for extension of
time to file the Written Statement, by way of a formal application,
where the defendant has missed the first window of thirty days.
12
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
The Court retains the discretion to decide whether the defendant
can be allowed to file its Written Statement within the final
extended window of one hundred twenty days from service of
summons but is denuded of the power to extend the window
beyond one hundred twenty days from the date of service of
summons. This would be evident from the repetition of the
stipulation (as an Order V Rule 1(1)) that
“…and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken
on record…”.
18. Hence, the final timeframe, as brought about by the
amended provisions of the CPC, is one hundred twenty days from
the date of service of summons for filing of the Written Statement
for Commercial Suits.
Pleading, Plaint and Written Statement
19. Order VI Rule 1 of the CPC defines “Pleading” as:
“”Pleading” shall mean Plaint or Written Statement.
20. Order VI Rule 2 requires Pleading to state material facts and
not evidence. Order VI Rule 2(1) specifies that,
“Every Pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise
form of the material facts on which the party Pleading relies for his claim or
13
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be
proved”.
21. Order VI Rule 3(A), applicable to commercial disputes of a
specified value w.e.f. 23.10.2015, provides for Forms of Pleading
prescribed by Rules framed by the High Court Rules or Practice
Directions.
22. Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC requires the pleading to state
particulars where a party relies on any misrepresentation, fraud,
breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence and all the cases
in which particulars may be necessary beyond that exemplified in
the prescribed forms of pleading.
23. Order VII of the CPC deals with “Plaint”. Order VII Rule 1
enumerates the particulars which are to be contained in a Plaint
including the facts constituting the cause of action, when it arose
and the relief which the plaintiff claims (Clauses (e) and (g),
respectively). Order VII Rule 7 reiterates the requirement of a
specific statement of the relief claimed in the Plaint including
claims made in the alternative. Order VII Rule 8 provides for
several distinct claims or causes of action founded upon separate
and distinct grounds and the requirement for the relief to be stated
separately and distinctly.
14
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
24. Order VIII, as stated above, deals with Written Statement
and is concerned with the timeframe within which the defendant
must file its Written Statement of the defence to the plaintiff’s
claim.
25. The definitions of “Pleading, Plaint and Written Statement”
make it clear that a Pleading, which includes a Plaint, is a
complete statement of the material facts on which the plaintiff
relies for its claim (or the defendant for its defence), but does not
include the evidence by which the material facts are to be proved.
Similarly, a Written Statement contains the defence in answer to
the claim in a Plaint.
26. Hence, a Plaint, by itself, is only a concise statement of the
material facts and the relief claimed in a Suit, sans the evidence
required for proving the material facts. Viewed in the aforesaid
light, i.e., in light of the definitions, a Plaint is the pleading
containing the material facts relevant for the cause of action and
the relief, simpliciter.
27. Order VI and Order VII (Pleadings and Plaint, respectively)
have not undergone any amendments pursuant to The Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 and have retained their respective definitions
even after the Amendment Act of 2016. Therefore, a Plaint would
15
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
only be the concise statement of the claim in a Suit and not the
documents annexed to the Plaint.
28. In other words, a Plaint within the framework of Order V
Rule 1(1), would only mean the Plaint as defined under Order VII
and a sub-set of a Pleading under Order VI Rule 1 – to mean the
claim filed in a Suit and served along with the summons to the
defendant. A closer reading of Order V Rule 1(1) would also reveal
that the purpose of issue of a summons to the defendant is for the
defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the Written
Statement of his defence. The defendant is hence only under an
obligation to file the Written Statement of his defence to the
“claim,” i.e., the claim in a Suit in the form of a Plaint, which
would only contain the material facts on which the cause of action
or relief is founded and without the evidence.
29. A comparison of some of the other provisions of the CPC in
relation to a Plaint would clarify this conclusion.
“Plaint” under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 and under Order XI and
Order XXXVII of the CPC.
Order VII:
30. Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC contemplates “Return of Plaint”
for being presented to the Court in which the Suit should have
16
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batchbeen instituted. The provision mentions “Plaint” as Plaint
simpliciter without any reference to annexures or documents to the
Plaint.
31. Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC deals with “Rejection of Plaint”
in certain cases including where the Plaint does not disclose a
cause of action and where the Suit appears from the statement in
the Plaint to be barred by any law (Clauses (a) and (d),
respectively). Order VII Rule 11 also mentions ‘Plaint’ as a stand-
alone Pleading without reference to any other documents filed with
the Plaint. It is well-settled that the Court must only look to the
Plaint and not to any other Pleading for deciding whether the Plaint
should be rejected under any of the cases mentioned in Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC. The Supreme Court has however given an
expansive construction of the ‘Plaint’ as contemplated under Order
VII Rule 11 for the purpose of rejection to also include documents
filed along with the Plaint 1.
Order XI:
32. Order XI of the CPC, as amended by the CCA, 2015, deals
with “Disclosure, Discovery and Inspection of documents in Suits
1
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra); AIRONLINE 2020 SC 634
17
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
before the Commercial Division of a High Court or a Commercial
Court”.
33. Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, as amended by the CCA, deals
with “Disclosure and discovery of documents”. Order XI Rule 1(1),
as amended by the CCA, requires the plaintiff to file a list of all
documents and photocopies of all documents, in its power,
possession, control or custody, pertaining to the Suit, along with
the Plaint, including documents referred to and relied on by the
plaintiff in the Plaint (Clause (a)) and documents relating to any
matter in question in the proceedings, in the power, possession,
control or custody of the plaintiff, as on the date of filing the Plaint,
irrespective of whether the same is in support of or adverse to the
plaintiff’s case (Clause (b)).
34. Order XI Rule 1(2) of the CPC, as amended by the CCA,
further refers to the list of documents filed with the Plaint to
specify whether the documents in the power, possession, control or
custody of the plaintiff are originals, office copies or photocopies
and to contain a brief of the details of parties to each document.
18
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
Order XXXVII:
35. Order XXXVII of the CPC relates to “Summary Procedure”.
Order XXXVII Rule 1(1) clarifies the “Courts and classes of Suits in
which Order XXXVII would apply”. Order XXXVII Rule 1(2)
enumerates the “Classes of Suits” which are amenable to Order
XXXVII. Order XXXVII Rule 2 deals with “Institution of Summary
Suits”.
36. Order XXXVII Rule 2(1) contemplates Institution of the
Summary Suits by presenting a Plaint containing statements as
enumerated under sub-Clauses (a) – (c). Significantly, Order
XXXVII Rule 2(2) deals with “Summons of the Suit” under Order
XXXVII to be in the prescribed form. Order XXXVII Rule 2(3)
stipulates that the defendant shall not defend the Suit referred to
in Order XXXVII Rule 1(1) unless the defendant enters appearance;
in default of which the allegations in the Plaint shall be deemed to
be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree.
37. Order XXXVII Rule 3 deals with the “Procedure for the
appearance of defendant”. Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) makes it
mandatory on the plaintiff to serve on the defendant along with the
summons, a copy of the Plaint and annexures thereto. The
19
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
defendant may, at any time within ten days of such service, enter
an appearance either in person or by pleader.
Relevance of the Above Provisions
38. The above provisions are to underscore the difference
between Order VII Rules 10 and 11 versus Order XI and XXXVII of
the CPC. While Order VII Rules 10 and 11 mention “Plaint” in
singular, i.e., as a self-contained pleading, Orders XI and XXXVII
specifically mentions “Plaint” along with “a list of all documents
and photocopies of all documents (Order XI)” along with the Plaint,
including the documents referred to in Order XI
Rule 1(1)(a)&(b) and “Plaint and annexures thereto” in Order
XXXVII Rule 3(1).
39. The difference in the language used by the Legislature
cannot be waved aside as a mere oversight. The framers must
have consciously decided to treat the Plaint as the concise
statement of the pleading for the purpose of the procedure
contemplated under the particular provision, as opposed to
requiring the Plaint to be filed along with annexures and
documents for the purpose of discovery of documents and in
summary suits. The conscious addition of “annexures and
documents” in some provisions, while leaving out such words in
20
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
other provisions, is a deliberate Legislative decision which must be
given its due weightage.
40. In other words, the Plaint must be read as a singular,
stand-alone Plaint/Pleading where the provision mentions it as
such and cannot be expanded to read annexures and documents
filed along with the Plaint where the same has expressly been
excluded.
41. In conclusion, the language used in Order V Rule 1 and
Order VIII Rule 1 is similar to Order VII Rules 10 and 11 and is
distinct and distinguishable from Order XI and XXXVII of the CPC.
All of the aforesaid provisions, except Order XXXVII have been
amended for Commercial Suits. The Commercial Courts Act
brought in “Summary Judgment” in Order XIII-A, which also
contemplates inclusion of documentary evidence along with the
application – Order XIII-A Rule 4(1)(c). Order XIII-A however does
not mention “Plaint” and uses the expression “Claim” in Order
XIII-A Rule 1(1) and (2).
42. In essence, Order V Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 1 does not
contemplate service of summons with a Plaint along with
documents and annexures. Order V Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 1
21
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
mandates service of the Plaint and only the Plaint as understood
as a Pleading/concise statement of the claim.
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not contemplate
Enlargement of time for filing Written Statement
43. The timeframe contemplated under Order V Rule 1 of the
CPC, and reiterated in Order VIII Rule 1 with regard to filing of a
Written Statement can be traced from sections 27 to 33 of the CPC,
which are collectively headlined as ‘Summons and Discovery’.
Section 27 provides the initial mandate for issuing a summons to
the defendant after a Suit has been duly instituted, requiring the
defendant to appear and answer the claim. Section 27 further
stipulates that the summons may be served in the prescribed
manner but not beyond thirty days from the date of the institution
of the Suit.
44. The language of Order V Rule 1(1) of the CPC initially caps
the period for filing a written statement at thirty days from the date
of service of summons on the defendant. In Commercial Suits, the
second proviso to the amended Order V Rule 1 has been inserted
to impose a mandatory final cap of one hundred twenty days from
the date of service of summons upon expiry of which the defendant
22
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court
shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.
45. The preceding discussion supports the view that the ‘Plaint’,
as mentioned under the heading to Order VII Rule 1 of the CPC,
cannot be dissected, namely, the plaint on one side and the
documents annexed to it on the other. Such a distinction would
introduce an unwarranted expansion of the term ‘Plaint’ as a
component of ‘Pleading’ as defined under Order VI Rules 1 and 2 of
the CPC. Pleadings are confined to concise statements of the
material facts constituting the claim or defence on which the party
relies. Therefore, treating a plaint as incomplete in the absence of
the documents annexed thereto would import a definition which is
wholly absent from both Order VI and Order VII of the CPC.
46. The petitioner seeks to argue the above position. The
petitioner’s argument, in essence, is that the service of a summons
along with the plaint does not trigger the limitation prescribed
under the second proviso to Order V Rule 1 (1) and the amended
proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 for Commercial Suit. The petitioner
contends such limitation commences only upon service of the
plaint together with the documents annexed thereto.
23
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
47. This argument overlooks several clear indications that a
‘Plaint’ is contemplated as a complete pleading even without the
annexed documents. It also disregards the Legislative intent
reflected in the provisions, such as Order XI and Order XXXVII of
the CPC which explicitly require ‘documents and annexures’ to
accompany the plaint – which are notably absent in Order V and
48. The petitioner’s contention that a plaint, without the
annexures, remains an inchoate document for the purpose of the
120 days limitation for filing a written statement is also markedly
inconsistent with the specific language of Order V Rule 1 and
49. Order V Rule 1(1) of the CPC, which relates to the issue and
service of summons, does not in fact use the word ‘Plaint’ at all.
The initial period for filing the Written Statement is counted as
thirty days ‘from the date of service of summons’ on the defendant.
The second proviso to Order V Rule 1 of the CPC, as inserted by
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, specifies a mandatory final cap
of ‘one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons’.
Similarly, under Order VIII Rule 1, the defendant is required to
24
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
present a Written Statement of his defence within ‘thirty days from
the date of service of summons on him’.
50. Correspondingly, the substituted proviso to Order VIII Rule 1
of the CPC stipulates that the period for filing the written
statement ‘shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the
date of service of summons…’.
51. Neither Order V Rule 1(1) nor Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC
mentions service of the ‘Plaint’ as the starting point for the
limitation period for filing a Written Statement. In both cases, the
limitation is expressly triggered by the date of service of summons
on the defendant. This gives rise to the obvious statutory
presumption that service of summons accompanied by the plaint
provides sufficient notice for the defendant to answer the claim
and file a Written Statement within 30 days of receipt thereof.
Therefore, forking the plaint into ‘plaint’ and ‘annexed documents’
to determine the commencement of the limitation period is
repugnant to the established statutory scheme of the Code.
52. As stated above, Order V Rule 1 of the CPC contemplates a
two-tier time frame: an initial period of 30 days followed by a
discretionary extension of 90 days, totaling to a final cap of 120
days from the date of service of summons on the defendant for
25
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
filing the Written Statement. The extension of 90 days may be
granted by the Court only upon an application made by the
defendant, with reasons to be recorded in writing for allowing such
extension. In Commercial Suits, the Court is expressly denuded of
the power to extend the time limit for filing a Written Statement
beyond the aggregate limit of 120 days.
53. Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC is set out below:
‘Procedure when party fails to present written statement
called for by Court:- Where any party from whom a written
statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present
the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as
the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment
against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it
thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a
decree shall be drawn up.’
54. Order VIII Rule 10 fortifies the plinth of the amended
provisos to Order 8 Rule 1 by stipulating that where any party
fails to file Written Statement within the prescribed timelines of
Order VIII Rule 1 or Rule 9, the Court shall pronounce judgment
against him/her or pass an order in the Suit as the Court
thinks fit and a decree shall be drawn up on the pronouncement
of such judgment. Order VIII Rule 10 was amended by the CCA
in respect of Commercial Suits to include the following proviso:
26
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch‘…provided that no Court shall make an order to extend
the time provided under Rule 1of this order for filing of the
written statement’ w.r.e.f. 23.10.2015
55. Hence, the amended provisos to Order VIII Rule 1 and
Order VIII Rule 10 clarify the picture once and for all: that a
defendant must stick to the mandatory timelines under the
amended provisions of the CPC for filing the Written Statement.
The Court is divested of its power to extend the timelines. The
Court is also under an obligation to pronounce judgment
against a defendant in default and the judgment shall amount
to a decree.
56. Thus, we are constrained to hold that the defendant in a
Commercial Suit cannot claim any further extension of time to file
a Written Statement beyond 120 days from the date of service of
summons.
57. As a corollary, the defendant cannot seek to bifurcate the
plaint into ‘plaint’ and ‘annexed documents’ for the purpose of
re-calculating or extending the limitation period.
58. In other words, the plaint must be regarded as a concise
statement of the material facts in support of the relief claimed
therein, and not as a document whose annexed evidence assumes
27
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
an independent legal status for the purpose of extending the
limitation period beyond that contemplated under Order V Rule 1
and Order VIII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. It would indeed be absurd to
suggest that a summons served along with the plaint (without
annexures) as mandated by Order V Rule 2 of the CPC would start
the limitation clock, while documents annexed to the same plaint
would trigger a parallel ticking of the clock. Such a fragmented
approach does not find support in the statutory scheme of Order V
or Order VIII of the CPC. The argument would also result in
cleaving the plaint into two parts each of which is capable of
starting its own limitation period.
59. As a matter of curiosity, what would be the legal
consequence if the documents annexed to the plaint were served
on the defendant after 120 days from the date of service of
summons? Would such delay permit the Court to whitewash the
limitation period in a Commercial Suit and allow the defendant to
file a written statement after 240 days from the date of service of
the summons?
60. The answer must be a resounding ‘No’. The clock starts
ticking (for the first and only time) when the summons is served on
the defendant along with a copy of the Plaint. The hands of the
28
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
clock cannot forcibly be turned back, on service of documents
annexed to the plaint, on the defendant.
Treating departures with Kindness would introduce an Arbitrary
aberration in the Statutory scheme
61. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of The Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 is to provide an independent mechanism for
speedy disposal and early resolution of high value commercial
disputes involving complex facts and questions of law. The
purpose is to project an investor – friendly and responsive image of
the Indian legal system to the world. Hence, the issue as to
whether timeframes for completion of pleadings in a Commercial
Suit can be extended should be viewed through the lens of the
object of the CCA.
62. An overview of the changes brought in by the CCA may help
in identifying the substantial procedural changes made to the CPC
in respect of Commercial Suits.
63. Section 16 of the CCA declares that the provisions of the
CPC shall stand amended in the manner as specified in the
Schedule to the CCA for application to any suit in respect of a
commercial dispute of a Specified Value: section 16(1).
29
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
64. Section 16(2) of the CCA provides that the Commercial
Division and Commercial Court shall follow the provisions of the
CPC as amended by the CCA in the trial of the suit in respect of a
commercial dispute of a specified value.
65. Section 16(3) of the CPC further provides that in the case of
a conflict between any Rule of the jurisdictional High Court or any
amendment to the CPC by the State Government and the
provisions of the CPC as amended by the CCA, the latter shall
prevail.
66. The CCA altered the procedural landscape of Commercial
Suits, which hitherto were governed by the CPC, with effect from
23.10.2015. The CCA was published in the Gazette of India on
01.01.2016. The amendments introduced by the CCA to the CPC
were in respect of Commercial Courts were manifold and included
section 35 of the CPC in relation to costs, section 35A
(compensatory costs) and to forms and verifications of pleadings in
a Commercial Dispute under Order VI. The proviso to Order VIII
Rule 1 brought in a maximum window of 120 days for filing of
Written Statement from the date of service of summons and the
subsequent forfeiture of such right where the defendant fails to file
a Written Statement within that window.
30
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
67. Order XI of the CPC, as amended by the CCA, completely
transformed the Rules of disclosure and discovery of documents in
relation to Commercial Suits. Order XIII-A of the CPC, as amended
by the CCA, likewise brought in a new procedural regime for
summary judgments. Order XV-A was in alignment to the object of
the CCA by introducing ‘case management hearing’.
68. The amendments brought in by the CCA to the CPC would
indicate that the Legislature thought it fit to overhaul the existing
procedural requirements under the CPC and tailor the
requirements to suit the sheathing and substance of Commercial
Disputes of a Specified Value in sync with the objects of the new
Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Thus, once a Suit is filed within the
parameters of the CCA, there is no scope of reverting to the
abandoned procedural framework of the CPC with regard to the
timeframes contemplated for filing of a Written Statement.
69. The discussion under the following captioned headings
would further reinforce the context.
31
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
The Mischief Rule
70. The Mischief Rule of interpretation as laid down in Heydon’s
Case 2 provides four criteria for interpreting statues in general,
whether penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common
law. The four criteria are:
(i) What was the Common Law before making of the Act?
(ii) What was the mischief and defect for which the Common
Law did not provide?
(iii) What remedy has the Parliament resolved and appointed
to cure the mischief; and
(iv) The true reason for the remedy.
71. Thus, interpreting a statute with the aid of the Mischief Rule
is to ensure an interpretation which would (a) suppress the
mischief, (b) advance the remedy, and (c) suppresses subtle
inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief: Mira
Gehani v. Axis Bank Limited 3.
72. The law prior to the CCA would to be seen i.e., the probable
mischief under the un-amended Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC in
the context of the prescribed limitation for filing of Written
2 (1584) 3 Co. Rep. 7a, p. 7b : 76 ER 637
3 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 358
32
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batchStatement. The probable mischief under Order VIII Rule 1 – prior
to the amendment – was that a defendant could file a Written
Statement beyond the maximum time provided under the proviso
to Order VIII Rule 1 taking advantage of the amendments
introduced to that provision by the High Courts. The power of the
Courts to take on a Written Statement beyond the period of 90
days was also uncertain i.e., whether the Court would permit a
Written Statement which was filed beyond the period of 90 days.
73. Order VIII Rule 1 post amendment (by the CCA) seeks to
cure this mischief by providing irreversible consequences where
the defendant fails to file a Written Statement within the stipulated
period of 120 days. The amended Order VIII Rule 1 also divests
the Court from taking on a Written Statement on record beyond
the period of 120 days. In other words, the CCA sought to
suppress the mischief of defendants taking advantage of the
uncertainty of the un-amended proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 by
introducing a statutory bar on the Courts from allowing a Written
Statement to be taken on record outside the final window of 120
days, thus advancing the remedy of expeditious disposal of
Commercial Suits.
33
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
74. The explicit bar on a Court to permit a Written Statement
from being brought on board after 120 days also finds resonance
in section 29(2) of The Limitation Act, 1963.
75. Section 29(2) of The Limitation Act, 1963, provides that for
the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for
any suit, appeal or application by the CCA, the limitation period
prescribed by any special law (the CCA in this case) would prevail
over section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 including sections 4 – 24
of the said Act. This means that the limitation provided under the
amended proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC would prevail over
section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which empowers the Court to
extend the prescribed period of limitation.
76. In conclusion, the CCA advances the object of timely Written
Statement by taking away the discretion of the Court to enlarge the
time beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons.
77. Consequentially, the Court cannot temper the express
strictness in the provision with kindness; as any such aberration
would force a fundamental asymmetry with the object and scheme
of the CCA, as envisaged by the Legislature. Kindness cannot
result in sugarcoating the strict timelines introduced in the CCA
34
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
and internalized in Order V Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 1 of the
CPC.
Courts cannot encourage Procedural Peculiarities which were not
contemplated by The Commercial Courts Act, 2015
78. The plaintiff’s argument that a defendant who failed to file
the Written Statement within the stipulated time period is expected
to collect the documents annexed to the plaint from the Court,
cannot be accepted as part of the required procedure. The
limitation period of 120 days starts to run as soon as the
summons is served on the defendant along with the plaint (even
without the annexures). The CCA/amended provisions of the CPC
do not contemplate that documents annexed to the plaint would
acquire an independent existence so as to trigger a fresh period of
limitation.
79. The substituted second proviso to Order V Rule 1 of the CPC
with a maximum window of one hundred twenty days for filing of
Written Statement does not give rise to the presumption that the
defendant will automatically have the benefit of one hundred
twenty days. The fact that Order V Rule 1(1) and the first proviso
to Order VIII Rule 1 caps the time to file the Written Statement to
thirty days from the date of service of summons is often
35
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
overlooked. The second proviso to Order V Rule 1 and the proviso
to Order VIII Rule 1 for Commercial Suits contemplate that the
further extension of ninety days may be allowed by the Court on an
application filed by the defendant.
80. It follows that filing of an application for extension of time
would not result in the extension unless the Court grants such
extension for reasons to be recorded in writing. Even then, the
Court loses its discretion and power to grant any further extension
beyond 120 days from the date of service of the summons on the
defendant. Similarly, filing of a Vakalatnama, as in the present
case, cannot trigger the parallel counting of days. The only
relevant date, for the purpose of the limitation for filing of the
Written Statement, would be the date of service of summons along
with the plaint to the defendant. Whether the plaint has been
served without the annexures is irrelevant for computing the
limitation period.
81. Therefore, the suggestion that the defendant has a duty to
collect the documents annexed to the plaint from the Court for
filing a comprehensive Written Statement amounts to an irregular
departure from the unambiguous words used in the inserted
provisos to Order V Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC. The
36
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
irregularity would be aggravated if the defendant was to collect
annexures after a time lag after service of the summons on that
defendant – flagging of an anomalous period of limitation from the
date on which the defendant collects those documents.
82. Such random departures from the plain words of the statute
would de-fang the efficacy of the amendments brought into the
CPC for Commercial Suits.
“Dura lex sed lex”
83. The captioned Latin maxim – the law is harsh, but it is the
law, applies with full vigour in this case. In other words, even if a
law is strict and punitive, it must be applied and obeyed to uphold
consistency and certainty. Equity can only supplement the law
but not supplant it. In other words, the Courts cannot invoke its
inherent powers including under section 151 of the CPC (or Article
227 of the Constitution of India in this case) to whitewash the
unambiguous provisions of the special law, once a special statute
has been enacted for a purpose and is in place and introduce a
note discordant to the statutory scheme.
37
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
Case Law
84. The clear, definite and mandatory provisions of Order V Rule
1 read with Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC cannot be circumvented
by recourse to the inherent powers under section 151 4. Desh Raj
v. Balkishan 5 reinforced that the amended provisions of the CPC
would henceforth be applicable to Commercial Suits as opposed to
non-Commercial Suits which continued to be within the ambit of
the un-amended provisions of the CPC. In National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. M/s.National Building Construction India 6, a Division Bench
of the Delhi High Court cautioned the defendant in Commercial
Suits to be extra-vigilant about the timelines. Vivek Kumar Saxena
v. M/s. College Book Store 7, a Single Bench of the Delhi High Court
highlighted a situation where a defendant cannot be permitted to
walk-in anytime at his/her own whim and contend that the
defendant should be given a fresh lease of life since he/she had not
been given a complete set of documents.
85. Nahar Enterprises v. Hyderabad Allwyn Ltd. 8 involved
different facts. In the summons served upon the
appellant/defendant, the date of appearance was fixed as
4
SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S.Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., (2019) 12 SCC 210
5
(2020) 2 SCC 708
6
2019 SCC OnLine Del 11369
7
2024 SCC OnLine Del 7485
8
(2007) 9 SCC 466
38
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
10.10.1988. However, the summons was not served and the Court
adjourned the matter to 02.12.1988. Summons was ultimately
served only on 14.10.1988 without a copy of the plaint.
Subsequently, the defendant sent a telegram to the Court on
17.10.1988 but did not receive any response. The Court proceeded
to hear the matter ex parte and decreed the suit on 13.12.1988.
The defendant came to know about the ex parte decree much later
and filed an Application for setting aside the ex parte decree which
was rejected by the Commercial Court and the same was confirmed
by the High Court in the Appeal. The Supreme Court accordingly
held that the defendant was not in a position to file the Written
Statement in the absence of a copy of the plaint served along with
the summons.
86. In Sunil Alagh v. Shivraj Puri & Another 9, summons was
served on 11.12.2016 and the paper book was supplied to the
defendant on 10.04.2017. The defendant nevertheless filed
Written Statement on 24.05.2017 which was struck off by the
Joint Registrar on 14.09.2017 on the ground that 120 days had
expired. Hence, as opposed to the present case, the defendant filed
the Written Statement after a delay of four months from the date of
service of summons, despite receiving paper book.
9
2017 SCC OnLine Del 12368
39
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
87. In Rajesh Kathpal v. Shubh Steel 10, summons was served on
the defendant on 29.07.2019. The defendant contended on
04.12.2019 that it had not received a complete set of plaint and
annexures. The plaint and annexures were served on the
defendant on 13.03.2020. Furthermore, the timelines in this case
were extended in view of the Supreme Court’s order in the wake of
COVID-19, pandemic, in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020.
Info Edge v. Sanjeev Goyal 11, Sreenivas Basudev v. Vineet Kumar
Kothari 12 and K.K.Manchanda v. SD Technicval Services P. Ltd.13
are not decisions under the provisions of the CCA or the amended
provisions of the CPC in relation to filing of Written Statement.
Church of Christ v. Ponniamman Educational Trust 14 dealt with
Order VII Rule 14 read with Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and the
Supreme Court was satisfied that certain documents including the
Agreement of Sale or GPA were not filed along with the plaint and
the said documents were to be treated as part and parcel of the
plaint. The case had no nexus with time frame for filing of a
Written Statement. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income
Tax v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers 15, referred to its earlier decision in
10
2022 SCC OnLine Del 3403
11
MANU/DE/3089/2007
12
2006 SCC OnLine Gau 17
13
2009 SCC OnLine Del 1732
14
(2012) 8 SCC 706
15
(2003) 3 SCC 57
40
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries 16, where it was held
that a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility
should give way in favour of a bolder construction where the choice
is between two interpretations.
88. Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanus Ali 17 was involved
with rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, and
the Supreme Court held that the averments made in the plaint
must be read in conjunction with the documents relied upon for
the purpose of assessing whether the plaint discloses a cause of
action. The present case is not a case for rejection of plaint and
there is no question whether the plaint discloses cause of action
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Conclusion
89. The discussion in the above paragraphs leads us to the
inevitable view that the amended second proviso to Order V Rule 1
and the amended proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 read with Order VIII
Rule 10 of the CPC cast a mandate on the defendant to file its
Written Statement within 30 days from the date of service of
summons on that defendant and thereafter within 90 days (i.e., a
16
(1940) 3 All ER 549
17
(2020) 7 SCC 366
41
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
total of 120 days) from the date of service of summons. The gates
stand closed after the period of 120 days since the right to file a
Written Statement stands forfeited. The Court is also divested of
its power to extend the time beyond 120 days for filing of the
Written Statement for suits involving a commercial dispute.
90. The extension of time from 30 days to 120 days for filing a
Written Statement is also not automatic and cannot be presumed
since the Court retains discretion to grant such extension beyond
30 days only upon an application made by the defendant. The
Court however loses its discretion in respect of any further
extensions beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons
on the defendant.
91. The plaint as mentioned in the first proviso to Order V Rule 1
of the CPC takes meaning from the word ‘claim’ under Order V
Rule 1(1). The Written Statement hence, under Order V Rule 1(1)
and the new second proviso to Order V Rule 1 as well as the new
proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 contemplates only a plaint without
annexures. The CPC consciously makes a distinction between the
‘Plaint’ as a standalone and complete document within the
meaning of ‘Pleading’ as defined under Order VI Rule 1 – as
opposed to a plaint together with documents under the amended
42
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
Order XI Rule 1 (1) (a) and (b) of the CPC. Similarly, Order XXXVII
Rule 3 specifically requires the plaintiff to serve a copy of the plaint
and annexures on the defendant.
92. The difference in the language used in the two sets of
provisions as mentioned above is not a statutory happenstance.
The Legislative intention in mentioning plaint along with
documents and annexures in certain other provisions of the CPC
including in Order XI and Order XXXVII is appropriate to the
contextual purpose of the provision. A defendant cannot stonewall
the effect of these exclusions/additions to its advantage for
extending the time to file the Written Statement beyond the specific
amendments to the CPC pursuant to the CCA.
93. Thus, we do not find any error in the impugned order of the
learned Commercial Court forfeiting the right of the defendants to
file their Written Statements. In any event, the broader criteria for
filing a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India on errors of judgment, miscarriage of justice or grave
procedural irregularities, are absent in this case. The amendments
introduced by the CCA to the CPC are clear and unambiguous.
The Commercial Court correctly followed these amendments and
applied them to the facts of the present case. Hence, even
43
MB,J & GPK,J
Crps_4464_2025 & batch
otherwise, the defendants have not brought a case which would
warrant invocation of the supervisory powers of a High Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
94. C.R.P Nos.4464, 4465 and 4466 of 2025 are accordingly
dismissed along with all connected applications. There shall be no
order as to costs.
_____________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
_____________________________
GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
DATE: 10.04.2026
Note: L.R. Copy be marked.
TJMR/NDS/VA/BMS