Dismissed¶¶28

Niwas Ramchandra Patil v. Sneha Sushas Sawant and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Sept 2025WP/9882/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; WRIT PETITION NO. 9882 OF 2025; commercial suit; written statement; 120-day maximum period; 'no W.S.' order; setting aside; Notice of Motion No 3792 of 2024; writ of summons service; Order V Rule 1; Order VIII Rule 1; amendment by Commercial Courts Act, 2015; no power to extend time to file written statement beyond 120 days; dismissal of notice of motion; dismissal of writ petition; N. J. Jamadar, J.

What did the court decide?

When the ‘no W.S.’ order was passed on 21st July 2023, a period of 90 days had already lapsed and no Written Statement had been filed; the Commercial Court had accordingly ordered the Suit to proceed without Written Statement, and the Petitioner's contrary submission did not merit countenance. ¶¶23

Niwas Ramchandra Patil vs Sneha Sushas Sawant and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the ‘no W.S.’ order dated 21st July 2023 could be set aside and the Petitioner-Defendant No.1 be permitted to file the Written Statement in the Commercial Suit. +1 more

¶¶20

Court's answer

¶¶23

Ratio / Principle

The Notice of Motion was taken out on 25th August 2023, after expiry of the 120-day period, and the Petitioner had not at any time before expiry approached the Court with a case that the Written Statement was ready; there was thus no basis to set aside the ‘no W.S.’ order.

¶¶24

Key takeaways

In view of Order V Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 1 as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Court has no power to extend time to file the Written Statement beyond 120 days; accordingly, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 9882 of 2025, Niwas Ramchandra Patil v. Sneha Suhas Sawant & Ors (N. J. Jamadar, J.), decided 20th September 2025. The petitioner, Defendant No.1 in a Commercial Suit, challenged the Commercial Court's order dated 3rd March 2025 dismissing his Notice of Motion No 3792 of 2024, which sought to set aside the 'no W.S.' order dated 21st July 2023 and to permit him to file the Written Statement. The Writ of Summons had been served on 19th April 2023 and the maximum 120-day period expired on 19th August 2023; per this Court's reading of the record, when the 'no W.S.' order was passed on 21st July 2023, 90 days had lapsed with no Written Statement filed. The Motion was taken out only on 25th August 2023, after expiry of the 120-day period, and the petitioner had not approached the Court before expiry with the Written Statement ready. Held: in view of Order V Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 1 as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Court has no power to extend time to file the Written Statement beyond 120 days; there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Petition dismissed. No precedent was cited.

¶1

61-WP-9882-2025.DOC

¶2

Arun Sankpal

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 9882 OF 2025

¶6

Niwas Ramchandra Patil

¶7

..Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sneha Suhas Sawant & Ors …Respondents

¶10

Mr. Shubham Mishra, i/b Ashok Mishra, for the Petitioner.

¶11

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED : 20^th SEPTEMBER 2025

¶12

ORAL ORDER:

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶14

The challenge in this Petition is to an Order dated 3^rd March 2025, whereby the Notice of Motion No 3792 of 2024 taken out by the Petitioner-Defendant No.1 to set aside the ‘no W.S.’ order and permit the Defendant No.1 to file the Written Statement in Commercial Suit came to be dismissed.

¶15

ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL

¶16

Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2025.09.23 09:13:48 +0530

¶17

The Writ of Summons was served on the Petitioner-Defendant No.1 on 19^th April 2023. The maximum period of 120 days expired on 19^th August 2023. The Petitioner took out the Notice of Motion No. 3792 of 2024 with the contention that on 21^st July 2023, the Court had passed an order that the Suit to proceed without Written Statement against the Defendants. However, on that day, the period of 120 days

¶18

1/3

¶19

61-WP-9882-2025.DOC

¶20

had not expired and, therefore, the said ‘no W.S.’ order dated 21^st July 2023 be set aside and the Petitioner be permitted to file the Written Statement.

¶21

The learned Judge, Commercial Court, was of the view that no Written Statement was filed within the maximum period of 120 days, and, thus, the Notice of Motion was devoid of substance.

¶22

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on 21^st July 2023, when the ‘no W.S.’ order was passed the period of 120 days had not expired and, therefore, the Petitioner-Defendant No.1 was justified in taking out the Notice of Motion to set aside the said order.

¶23

The submission does not merit any countenance. From the record it is evident that when the ‘no W.S.’ order was passed a period of 90 days had lapsed and, yet, no Written Statement was filed and, therefore, the Commercial Court had passed an order that the Suit would proceed without Written Statement qua Defendant No.1.

¶24

The Notice of Motion was taken out by the Defendant No.1 on 25^th August 2023. By that date, the period of 120 days had expired. It is not the case that at any time before the expiry of 120 days, the Petitioner approached the Court with a case that the Written Statement was ready and the Defendant No.1 be permitted to file the Written Statement. In the aforesaid view of the matter, in view of the provisions contained in Order V Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 1, as amended by the

¶25

2/3

¶26

61-WP-9882-2025.DOC

¶27

Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Court has no power to extend time to file the Written Statement beyond the period of 120 days. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

¶28

The Petition stands dismissed.

¶29

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶30

3/3

Niwas Ramchandra Patil v. Sneha Sushas Sawant and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niwas Ramchandra Patil v. Sneha Sushas Sawant and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ganesh Ramchandra Naik vs Manohar Krishna Madhavi (M.K.)

Banubi Maqbool Qureshi vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Finansys Wealth Advisors LLP and Anr. vs Jayshree Jagdish Thatte and Ors.

Mahanagar Associates Thr Subhash Sitaram Goel and Anr. vs Bhagwan Nathu Nimhan and Ors.

Sadanand Builders Thr Its Authorized Signatory vs the Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar Co. Operative Socand Ors.

Ashok Shreekrishna Beharay vs the Joint Charity Commissioner Pune and Anr.