AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 25.8.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in C.O.S.No.78 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Court, Ranipet District, Ranipet (for short, the Court below) wherein the application filed by the petitioner/ defendant for extension of time to file the written statement came to be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned order.
The respondent filed the said suit seeking for the relief of recovery of money. The petitioner/defendant appeared through a counsel, who filed vakalat on 22.10.2024. The said application came to be filed before the Court below on the side of the petitioner/ defendant seeking for extension of time under Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to file a written statement and it came to be dismissed by the Court below vide the impugned order. Aggrieved by that, the above civil revision petition has been filed before this Court.
The Court below has taken note of the fact that the petitioner/defendant was represented through a counsel, who filed the vakalat on 22.10.2024. But, no written statement was filed till 19.2.2025 when the mandate of 120 days period expired. Thereafter, on 04.3.2025, the said application came to be filed by the petitioner/defendant seeking for extension of time to file the written statement and it was dismissed by the Court below.
In order to ascertain as to whether the petitioner/defendant was served with a copy of the plaint and the plaint documents, this Court called for a report from the Court below. On verification of the entire bundle, the Court below confirmed that there was absolutely no record to show as to when the plaint and the plaint documents were served on the petitioner/defendant. It is also not clear as to when the respondent/plaintiff served a copy of the plaint and the plaint documents to the petitioner/defendant.
The amended Proviso to Order V Rule 1(1) of the CPC and the amended Proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, introduced by the Commercial Courts Act, prescribe a very strict and mandatory outline of 120 days period for filing a written statement in commercial disputes. No Court can entertain a written statement that is filed after the expiry of 120 days period and the defendant forfeits his right to file a written statement on the expiry of 120 days.
Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s.SCG Contracts India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. K.S.Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. [reported in 2019 (12) SCC 210].
The defendant will be able to effectively file a written statement only if the summons is served on him/her along with the plaint and the plaint documents.
In the case in hand, the defendant had the knowledge that a suit has been filed and was represented through counsel, who filed the vakalat on 22.10.2024. However, the most crucial part is as to when the defendant or the counsel for the defendant was served with the plaint and the plaint documents.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the petitioner, having entered appearance through a counsel on 22.10.2024, must have acted with due diligence and filed the written statement within the mandate of 120 days and that after this period lapsed, the defendant cannot be permitted to take a stand that the plaint and the plaint documents were not served on the learned counsel for the defendant.
In the considered view of this Court, in the absence of any materials to establish the service of summons along with the plaint and the plaint documents, the mandate of 120 days period cannot be strictly enforced since filing of a written statement in such a case becomes impossible. In the absence of any record either from the Court or from the respondent/plaintiff for having served the plaint and the plaint documents to the petitioner/defendant, the written statement that has been filed by the petitioner/defendant along with the application for extension of time should have been considered by the Court below.
In the case in hand, the petitioner/defendant has taken a specific stand that even the suit summons were not served on him.
The suit was posted for hearing on 10.1.2025, on which date, the Presiding Officer was not sitting and therefore, the case was adjourned to 04.3.2025, on which date, the written statement was filed. Therefore, it impelled the petitioner/defendant to file the said application under Section 148 of the CPC.
In the peculiar facts of the present case where there is nothing to show the service of summons or service of copy of the plaint and the plaint documents on the petitioner/defendant, this Court is inclined to permit the petitioner/defendant to contest the said suit before the Court below.
In the light of the above discussions, the above civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.8.2025 made in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in COS.No.78 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Court, Ranipet District, Ranipet is set aside. There shall be a direction to the Court below to take the written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant on file and proceed further in accordance with law to frame the issues and complete the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed.