Back
Additional Written Statements Barred After 120-Day Deadline in Commercial Suits:
Clarifies Strict Time Limit for Additional Pleadings in Commercial Disputes
The has delivered a significant ruling on the procedural timeline for commercial suits, holding that a defendant cannot invoke the provision for filing an under after the for filing the written statement has expired. Justice Easwaran S. made the ruling while dismissing a petition filed by Subin Backer, the first defendant in a commercial suit pending before the .
Case Background: The Battle Over an
The dispute arose from Commercial Suit No. 36/2023 before the , involving Subin Backer as defendant No.1 and multiple financial institutions including , , and , as well as individual defendants and a partnership firm, .
After the plaintiff’s evidence was closed, Backer filed an application (I.A. 23/2025) seeking permission to file an . The Commercial Court rejected this application on , holding that since the mandatory 120-day period for filing the written statement under the proviso to (as amended by the ) had expired, no could be entertained.
Backer challenged this order before the High Court under , arguing that the amendments introduced by the did not affect Order VIII Rule 9, which governs and requires only the .
Conflicting High Court Views on Display
The case presented a direct conflict between two divergent views from other High Courts. The petitioner relied on the 's decision in Novartis AG and Another v. Natco Pharma Limited (), which held that since the did not amend Order VIII Rule 9, its applicability to commercial suits could not be ruled out, and a defendant could seek leave to file additional written statements even beyond 120 days.
In contrast, the respondents cited the ’s recent ruling in Sri Gokulam Hospital Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Canadian Crystalline Water India Limited (), which held that the of the under Section 21 means that the right under Order VIII Rule 9 can only be exercised within the specified 120-day period, if at all.
Court’s Reasoning: Purpose Overrides Literal Reading
Justice Easwaran S. carefully examined the statutory framework. He noted that provides that the CPC stands amended in the manner specified in the schedule. While the schedule amends Order VIII Rule 1 to include a strict 120-day outer limit for filing written statements, it does not expressly mention Order VIII Rule 9. However, the court held that accepting the petitioner’s argument would create an incongruous situation where a defendant forfeits the right to file a written statement after 120 days but could then rely on Rule 9 to file an .
“Since the Act provides that the defendant shall forfeit his right to file a written statement, the applicability of Order VIII Rule 9 should be considered in the touchstones of the purpose for which the proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII has been incorporated. Otherwise, the purpose of proviso will stand obliterated,” the court observed.
The High Court clarified that this does not mean a defendant has no right to file an . “The defendant still will have the right to file an , provided such application is filed within the statutory framework of 120 days. Beyond that period, this Court sees no reason as to why the benefit of Order VIII, Rule 9 should be extended to the case of a commercial suit. To hold otherwise would completely obliterate the purpose for which the Act was enacted and intended for fast-tracking cases of commercial disputes.”
Preserved Under Section 151
Importantly, the court carved out a limited exception, noting that despite the bar, the Commercial Court retains its under . “It is open for the Commercial Court to exercise its powers under Section 151 to require the defendant to file additional written statements, if the circumstances so warrant,” the judgment stated.
This ensures that while a defendant cannot invoke Rule 9 as a matter of right after the deadline, the court itself may, in appropriate cases, direct the filing of additional written statements in the interest of justice.
Final Decision and Directions
The found the impugned order legally sustainable, though it lacked detailed reasoning. “For reasons supplemented by this Judgment, this Court finds that the order impugned is perfectly correct and does not call for any interference,” Justice Easwaran S. held.
However, recognizing that the plaintiff’s evidence had been closed after examining witnesses, the court directed the Commercial Court to reopen the evidence so that the defendant could cross-examine the plaintiff on the merits of the claim. The Commercial Court was ordered to pass suitable orders on this within 10 days of receiving the judgment.
By following the ’s approach over the , the has reinforced the strict timeline philosophy of the , sending a clear message that procedural delays will not be permitted to undermine the expeditious resolution of commercial disputes.
