IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
M/s. B.Ram Reddy Infra and others - Respondents
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4464, 4465 AND 4466 OF 2025
Decided On : 10-04-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. 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 18) |
| 2. 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) |
| 3. 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) |
| 4. 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) |
| 5. 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) |
| 6. 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) |
ORDER :
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.
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 defendant Nos.2 and 3. The 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 o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.