1. Suit filed for commercial dispute; court allowed plaint amendment but directed service of amended documents, which were not served until after the initial appearance date. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74942
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Easwaran S., J
Shivakumar – Appellant
Versus
Jayakumar K. – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 449 OF 2026
Important Points
In commercial suits, the statutory period for filing a written statement commences from the date of actual service of the amended plaint, especially when the court had specifically directed the plaintiff to serve the amended versions on the defendants.
Subject
Civil Law - Commercial Litigation
Headnote
(A) Commercial Law - Filing of Written Statement - Calculation of limitation period - When a court directs the plaintiff to serve an amended plaint on the defendants, the statutory period for filing the written statement commences only upon actual service of such amended pleadings. (Para 3, 6)
(B) Procedural Irregularity - Service of Pleadings - Failure of the plaintiff to comply with the court's direction to serve amended documents prevents the court from rejecting a written statement solely on the ground of lapsing of the mandatory 120-day period, provided the statement was filed within the statutory limit from the date of actual service. (Para 5, 6)
Issues: Whether the written statement filed by the petitioners should be accepted despite the Commercial Court's finding that the mandatory period of 120 days had elapsed.
(B) Procedural Irregularity - Service of Pleadings - Failure of the plaintiff to comply with the court's direction to serve amended documents prevents the court from rejecting a written statement solely on the ground of lapsing of the mandatory 120-day period, provided the statement was filed within the statutory limit from the date of actual service. (Para 5, 6)
Issues: Whether the written statement filed by the petitioners should be accepted despite the Commercial Court's finding that the mandatory period of 120 days had elapsed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.J.Manu Raj, M.H.HANIL KUMAR, A.P.VASAVAN, K.K.PRASARA, GOPIKA ANIL
For the Respondents: NAVANEETH.N.NATH, ABHIRAMI S., ABDUL LATHEEF P.M., KRUPA SAJI, ARUN GOPI G. L.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.J.Manu Raj, M.H.HANIL KUMAR, A.P.VASAVAN, K.K.PRASARA, GOPIKA ANIL
For the Respondents: NAVANEETH.N.NATH, ABHIRAMI S., ABDUL LATHEEF P.M., KRUPA SAJI, ARUN GOPI G. L.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought acceptance of written statement following delayed service of amended plaint; respondent contested on expiry of the 120-day statutory limitation period for filing. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. The court found procedural irregularities in the Trial Court's process and observed that the statutory period for filing the written statement commences only after service of the amended plaint. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 )
4. The limitation period for filing a written statement following an amendment to the plaint only begins to run upon proper service of the amended process to the defendants. (Para 6 )
5. The High Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the Trial Court to accept the written statement filed by the defendants. (Para 6 )
6. When does the statutory period for filing a written statement commence after an amendment to the plaint in a commercial suit?
The statutory timeline for filing a written statement is triggered only after the plaintiff completes the service of the amended plaint and associated applications upon the defendants as directed by the court. (Para 3 , 6 )
7. Does a trial court's failure to ensure compliance with a directive to serve amended pleadings invalidate a rejection of a written statement?
Yes, if a court orders the service of an amended plaint and that order is not complied with by the plaintiff, a subsequent rejection of a written statement based on expiry of time is unsustainable as the limitation period cannot accrue until service is effected. (Para 5 , 6 )
EASWARAN S., J .
------------------------------------
O.P.(C) No.449 of 2026 -------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2026
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in the Commercial Suit No.4 of 2025 before the Sub Court, Palakkad. The question that arises for consideration is whether the written statement filed by the petitioners on 04.07.2025 should be accepted to file or not. A few dates are required to be stated for deciding the issue. On 28.01.2025, the suit was presented and summons issued. On 05.02.2025, the first defendant was served with summons. The date of appearance was noted as 27.02.2025. However, summons to the second defendant returned 'unclaimed'. In the meantime, the plaintiff got the suit advanced considering the application for amendment of the schedule to I.A. and the plaint, which were allowed on 1202.2025, without hearing the first defendant nor waiting for the service to the second defendant being completed. However, by allowing the amendment, the Commercial Court, Palakkad ordered the plaintiff to serve a copy of the amended application and the plaint to the defendants. Indisputably, the plaintiff did not take any action to serve a copy of the amended plaint as well as I.A. on the defendants. On 28.03.2025, the defendants appeared and filed Vakkalath. The case was listed on 09.04.2025, on which date, the plaintiff served the amended plaint and the I.A to the counsel for the defendants. On 04.07.2025, the written statement was filed. On 18.08.2025, when the matter was listed before the court, observing that the written statement cannot be accepted, since the mandatory period of 120 days was elapsed. The petitioners filed an application for review which was rejected by Ext.P7 order which is impugned in the original petition.
2. Heard Sri.K.J.Manu Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Navaneeth N.Nath, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. On an anxious consideration of the submissions raised across the Bar, this Court finds procedural irregularity committed by the Commercial Court. When the suit was posted for 27.02.2025 for return of summons and appearance of the defendants, the court ought not have allowed an advancement of the suit and the amendment application could not have been considered. The record of proceedings indicates that on 12.02.2025, by granting amendment, the court directed the plaintiff to carry out amendment and serve copy of the plaint and attachment to the defendants. The proceedings further indicate that between 12.02.2025 to 28.03.2025, when the defendants appeared through the counsel, the plaintiff did not take any steps to serve the copy of the amended plaint to the defendants. Thus, when the matter came up for consideration on 09.04.2025, the court directed the defendants to file the written statement within the statutory period. It is admitted case that on 09.04.2025, the copy of the amended plaint and the I.A were served.
4. Though the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently pointed out that the amendment has no consequence and no effect on the plaint claim, inasmuch as the amendment was only for correction of the Block numbers and Survey numbers in the schedule to the application, this Court is unable to accept the aforesaid contention.
5. It is highly premature for this Court to judge whether the amendment sought for and granted has any impact on the plaint or the property so attached. This Court is concerned about the compliance of the directions issued by the Commercial Court on 12.02.2025, wherein it is specifically directed the plaintiff to serve the copy of the amended plaint as well as I.A on the defendants.
6. The records further indicate that no such steps was taken by the plaintiff to serve the copy of the amended plaint on the defendants. It is further admitted that the amended plaint was served only on 09.04.2025 and that be so, the written statement filed on 04.07.2025 within the statutory period of 120 d
