Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12238

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Moushumi Bhattacharya, Gadi Praveen Kumar, JJ
Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
B.Ram Reddy Infra – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4464, 4465 AND 4466 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sunil B.Ganu, Shireen Sethna Baria
For the Respondents: Vamsi Velagapudi, Suresh Bhaktula

In commercial suits, the limitation period for filing a written statement is mandatorily capped at 120 days from the date of service of summons. This period cannot be extended, and the service of a plaint without annexed documents is sufficient to trigger the commencement of this limitation period.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order V Rule 1(1), Order VIII Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 10 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 16 - Forfeiture of right to file Written Statement - Limitation period for filing Written Statement in commercial suits is mandatorily capped at 120 days from date of service of summons - Court lacks discretion to grant extensions beyond this statutory limit. (Paras 11, 44, 52, 89)

(B) Commercial Law - Pleadings - Definition of Plaint - Service of summons with copy of plaint is sufficient to trigger limitation period - Documents annexed to plaint do not hold independent legal status to extend statutory limitation - Any attempt to bifurcate plaint into 'plaint' and 'annexures' for calculating limitation is contrary to statutory scheme. (Paras 26, 28, 45, 58, 78)

Facts of the case:
Defendants in multiple commercial suits challenged orders passed by the lower court which forfeited their right to file written statements. The defendants contended that the service of summons was not effective as it lacked all documents relied upon by the plaintiff, and claimed that the limitation period for filing the written statement should only commence from the date they received the complete set of documents.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the statutory limitation for filing a written statement in commercial suits is firm. The summons, accompanied by the plaint, constitutes sufficient service to trigger the 120-day period. The court held that it has no power to extend this timeframe, emphasizing the object of the legislation is to ensure the expeditious disposal of high-value commercial disputes.

Issues: The main issues were whether the commercial courts permit filing of a written statement beyond 120 days from the service of summons and whether the limitation period can be divided based on the receipt of the plaint versus the receipt of accompanying documents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the legislative intent behind the special enactment is to provide a strict, irreversible timeline for pleadings. Once a suit is within the ambit of the special law, the court cannot invoke inherent powers to bypass mandatory time limits or permit procedural irregularities that undermine the goal of swift resolution.

Result: Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.

Table of Content
1. introduction to the commercial dispute and the procedural issue concerning the forfeiture of the right to file written statements due to limitation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. parties' contentions regarding whether service of the plaint without annexures triggers the limitation period for filing the written statement. (Para 7 , 8)
3. analysis of the statutory timelines under order v rule 1 and order viii rule 1 of the cpc as amended by the commercial courts act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. distinction between a 'plaint' as a pleading and documentation/annexures under the procedural framework of the cpc. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
5. the 120-day limit for filing a written statement is a mandatory, non-extendable statutory bar triggered by summons service. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
6. interpretation of the commercial courts act using the mischief rule to ensure expeditious disposal of commercial disputes. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77)
7. rejection of the argument that late service of documents creates an independent limitation period; strict adherence to procedural timelines. (Para 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88)
8. affirmation that the trial court's forfeiture of the right to file a written statement was correct and legally compliant. (Para 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94)

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

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:

(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 26.06.2025 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 defe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12238

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADMoushumi Bhattacharya, Gadi Praveen Kumar, JJIndian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. – AppellantVersusB.Ram Reddy Infra – RespondentCIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4464, 4465 AND 4466 OF 2025

In commercial suits, the limitation period for filing a written statement is mandatorily capped at 120 days from the date of service of summons. This period cannot be extended, and the service of a plaint without annexed documents is sufficient to trigger the commencement of this limitation period.

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Moushumi Bhattacharya, Gadi Praveen Kumar, JJ
Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
B.Ram Reddy Infra – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4464, 4465 AND 4466 OF 2025