Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 8716

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Ravi Nath Tilhari, Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, JJ
Bunge India Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Sree Mahalakshmi Oil Mills – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 214/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.V.Ravi Prasad, Gnani Vivek Karra
For the Respondents: Mukund Rao, D.S.Sivadarshan

While the 120-day limit for filing a written statement in commercial disputes is mandatory, the procedural requirement to show sufficient cause for delay beyond 30 days is directory. Courts should grant an opportunity to explain delays before striking off a defence to ensure substantial justice is served.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 1 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Filing of written statement - Limitation period of 30 days and extended period of 120 days - Procedural nature of law - The provision stipulating a timeline for filing the written statement, while mandatory in language, remains essentially directory in character, serving as the handmaid of justice. The court's primary duty is to ensure substantial justice, and technical procedural violations should not be allowed to defeat rights if no severe prejudice is caused to the adversary. (Paras 17, 31, 33, 35, 37)

(B) Practice and Procedure - Striking off defence - Requirement of showing sufficient cause - Even where a written statement is filed beyond the initial 30 days but within the 120-day limit without a formal application or recorded reasons, striking off the defence is a drastic measure that should be avoided if an opportunity can be granted to the defendant to explain the delay. (Paras 43, 56)

Facts of the case:
In an ongoing commercial dispute, the defendant filed their written statement on the 110th day after receiving the summons. The trial court allowed the initial filing but later struck off the document because it was filed beyond the statutory 30-day period without a formal application for condonation of delay or explanation of reasons, and the court's earlier order had not explicitly recorded reasons or formally condoned the delay.

Findings of Court:
Upon review, it was found that the trial court's order striking off the written statement was premature and denied the defendant an opportunity to present valid reasons for the delay within the remaining available statutory timeframe. Procedural laws, even in commercial disputes, should prioritize the discovery of truth and the resolution of the matter on merits.

Issues: Whether the trial court validly exercised its discretion in striking off the written statement filed between the 30th and 120th day without an accompanying application for condonation of delay, and whether the defendant should be allowed a subsequent opportunity to explain the delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Procedural rules are the handmaid of justice intended to facilitate, not stifle, the adjudication of disputes. Although the 120-day limit under the relevant Act is strict and mandatory for the finality of filing, the court retains the power to allow a defendant to present an application for condonation of delay for a document filed within that period. Striking off a defence without granting the party a fair chance to explain procedural lapses results in potential miscarriage of justice.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned order set aside with direction to grant an opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay.

Table of Content
1. procedural background: suit filing and written statement delay. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. trial court's refusal to accept delayed written statement. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. arguments regarding mandatory nature of procedural deadlines. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. judicial interpretation of order viii rule 1 c.p.c. timelines. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
5. procedure as the handmaid of substantive justice. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
6. permissibility of filing condonation application after 120 days. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
7. right to file written statement within 120 days. (Para 57 , 58)

Cases referred :

1. (2005) 4 SCC 480

2. 2020 SCC Online 684

3. 2020 SCC Online Del 2072

4. 2021 SCC Online Del 4679

5. 2024 SCC Online Mad 4785

6. 2025 DHC 9512

7. (2005) 6 SCC 344

8. (2005) 4 SCC 480

9. (2020) 1 CTC 586

10. (2008) 17 SCC 117

11. (2020) 10 SCC 706

12. (2023) 11 SCC 79

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

1. Heard Sri V.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri Gnani Vivek Karra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mukund Rao, learned counsel appearing for Sri D.S.Sivadarshan, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner, who is the defendant in C.O.S.No.24 of 2024 on the file of the Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada, being aggrieved from the order dated 26.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.58 of 2025 in the said C.O.S, wherein the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent was allowed and the written statement submitted by the defendant/petitioner was struck off.

3. The plaintiff, M/s.Sree Mahalakshmi Oil Mills, filed the C.O.S against the defendant/respondent, Bunge India Pvt. Ltd, for the following reliefs:

“A. Direct the defendant to refund the plaintiff's money of Rs. 1,35,20,109.00 (Rupees One Crore Thirty-Five Lakhs Twenty Thousand One hundred and Nine Only) held by the defendant with interest @ 36% per annum on the aforesaid sum from 14.09.2024 to until the date of realization together with costs.

B. Direct the defendant to pay the plaintiff, damages for a sum of Rs. 3,21,65,534.94/- (Rupees Three Crores Twenty-One Lakhs Sixty-Five Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty-Four Ninety-Four Paise) with interest @36% per annum on the aforesaid sum from the date of filing of this present suit to until the date of realization together with costs.

C. Declare the unilaterally and onerously revised contracts no. 41016607 dated 14.09.2024 issued by the defendant instead of Contract No. 41027569 for remaining quantity of 40.060 MTs of Palm Olein Oil in Bulk @ 1,14,390 Per MT as null and void

D. Declare the unilaterally and onerously revised contracts no. 40995807 dated 14.09.2024 issued by the defendant instead of Contract No. 41027569 for contract No. 41017411 for 1000 MTs of Palm Olein Oil in Bulk @ 1,15,890 Per MT as null and void.

E. For costs of this Suit including the court fees paid and legal costs and such further or other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

4. The plaintiff/respondent filed I.A.No.188 of 2024 for temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating the petition schedule property.

5. The plaintiff/respondent filed I.A.No.58 of 2025 supported with the affidavit to strike off the written statement of the defendant.

6. It was contended that the defendant had received suit summons on 30.10.2024 and entered appearance before the Special Judge on 06.11.2024 to advance hearing of I.A.No.187 of 2024. The 30 days period for filing written statement expired on 06.12.2024. The written statement could be filed thereafter also within the extended period of 120 days with the leave of the Court. That period of 120 days was due to expir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 8716

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHRavi Nath Tilhari, Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, JJBunge India Pvt Ltd – AppellantVersusSree Mahalakshmi Oil Mills – RespondentCIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 214/2026

Cases Referred (4)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Ravi Nath Tilhari, Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, JJ
Bunge India Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Sree Mahalakshmi Oil Mills – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 214/2026