M/S a. G. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Chetan Dass

Delhi HC7 May 2025CM(M)/3260/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order 8 Rule 1 proviso CPC; written statement to amended plaint; striking off defence; service and appearance before amendment; Commercial Courts Act; 120 days outer limit; defective summons 'Summons for Settlement of Issues'; commercial suit; restoration of defence; cost Rs. 25,000/-; CM(M) 3260/2024; High Court of Delhi; Justice Manoj Jain; A.G. Overseas Pvt Ltd v. Chetan Dass.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed: written statement filed on 25.08.2024 (per petitioners' counsel) deemed taken on record, with copy to be supplied to opposite counsel without delay; failing that, to be filed within seven days with advance copy; defendant Nos. 1 to 3 burdened with total cost of Rs. 25,000/- payable within seven days; learned Commercial Court to permit the written statement on record and proceed further in accordance with law. ¶¶32

M/S a. G. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Chetan Dass — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court could close the defendants' right to file written statement and strike off their defence when the outer permissible limit (120 days) for filing the written statement to the amended plaint had not expired. +2 more

¶¶20

Court's answer

The outer permissible limit to file the written statement had not expired when the Trial Court took up the matter on 12.07.2024; hence the closure of the right to file written statement and striking off of defence could not stand, particularly in view of the plaintiff's counsel's concession (written statement to be taken on record subject to costs).

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

Under the proviso to Order 8 Rule 1, the period for filing a written statement is to be reckoned from the date on which the defendant was served with the summons.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

Once service is complete and the defendant has put in appearance, a subsequent amendment of the plaint does not attract that provision ipso facto for striking off the defence; the Court may give a time-frame for filing written statement to the amended plaint, but cannot rely on the proviso for the purpose of striking off defence.ratio¶¶27
The summons issued to the defendants were not in the proper form (being 'Summons for Settlement of Issues'), and the summons prescribed in relation to a commercial suit was never served upon the defendants; this despite possible oversight/inadvertence.ratio¶¶29
If the written statement has already been submitted before the learned Commercial Court, it shall be deemed to be taken on record; otherwise it was to be filed within seven days with advance copy to the other side.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Jain, J.) — CM(M) 3260/2024 (07.05.2025): Where defendants in a commercial suit had already been served and had appeared, the period for filing a written statement to a subsequently amended plaint cannot, for the purpose of striking off the defence, be computed by ipso facto recourse to the proviso to Order 8 Rule 1; the Court may at most set a time-frame. The summons issued were defective ('Summons for Settlement of Issues') and the summons prescribed for a commercial suit was never served; further, the outer permissible limit of 120 days had not expired when, on 12.07.2024, the Trial Court closed the right to file the written statement and struck off the defence. Petition allowed: written statement (filed 25.08.2024, per counsel) deemed taken on record, else to be filed within seven days, subject to total costs of Rs. 25,000/- on defendant Nos. 1–3; Commercial Court to proceed in accordance with law.

¶1

$~54

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 07^th May, 2025

¶4

- CM(M) 3260/2024 M/S A. G. OVERSEAS PVT LTD & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Saquib Arab, Advocate. versus

¶5

CHETAN DASS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Teena Kataria, Advocate. CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶7

CM APPL. 27628/2025

¶8

The issued raised in the present petition is very short and precise.

¶9

An application seeking early hearing has also been filed by respondent/plaintiff and since the learned counsel for petitioner has also joined the proceeding through video conferencing , with the consent of the parties, the matter has been taken up today.

¶10

Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms and the next date i.e. 13.08.2025 is also cancelled.

¶11

CM(M) 3260/2024

¶12

The petitioners herein (defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Trial Court) are defending a suit, which is commercial in nature.

¶13

They were duly served with the summons of the suit. However, after such service and after their appearance before the learned Trial Court, when the matter was taken up by the learned Trial Court on 29.04.2024, the plaintiff moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 seeking amendment in the

¶14

CM(M) 3260/2024 1

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 8.05.2025 15:30:56

¶16

plaint.

¶17

A copy of such application was supplied to the defendants and the arguments were heard, then and there. The application was allowed and the amendment plaint was directed to be taken on record.

¶18

It is, however, not very clear whether the defendants had opposed the application or conceded to the abovesaid request seeking amendment in the plaint.

¶19

Fact, however, remains that the defendants were accordingly, granted opportunity to file written statement to such amended plaint and the matter was adjourned to 12.07.2024.

¶20

When the matter was taken up by the learned Trial Court on 12.07.2024, noticing that no written statement had been filed, their right to submit written statement has been closed and their defence has also been struck off. The learned Trial Court was also of the view that the period prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act had also expired.

¶21

Such order is under challenge.

¶22

The stipulation given in proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 CP is for calculating the period within which a written statement is to be filed. Such period has to be reckoned from the date on which any such defendant was served with the summons.

¶23

However, once, the service is complete and defendant puts in appearance as well and if subsequent thereto, there is any amendment in the

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

CM(M) 3260/2024 2

¶26

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 8.05.2025 15:30:56

¶27

plaint, though, the Court can give some kind of time-frame to the defendant to file written statement to such amended plaint, for the purposes of striking of defence, the Court cannot, ipso facto , rely on the abovesaid provision.

¶28

10. Unfortunately, in the present case, even the summons which had been issued to the defendants are not in the proper form as these are ‘ Summons for Settlement of Issues’.

¶29

It might be a case of some oversight and inadvertence but the summons prescribed in relation to a commercial suit were never served upon the defendant.

¶30

More Importantly, the outer permissible limit to file any written statement had not even expired when the matter was taken up by the learned Trial Court on 12.07.2024.

¶31

Ms. Teena Kataria, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that, without prejudice to her rights and contentions, she would have no objection if the written statement is directed to be taken on record, albeit , subject to some cost.

¶32

Evidently, the defendants should have also been extra-cautious and vigilant and should have ensured that the written statement was filed, as quickly as possible. However, keeping in mind the overall factual matrix of the present case and also the gracious concession given by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the fact that the right to file written statement was closed despite that fact that the permissible outer limit of 120 days had not yet expired, the present petition is allowed.

¶33

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 8.05.2025 15:30:56

¶34

CM(M) 3260/2024 3

¶35

According to Mr. Saquib Arab, learned counsel for petitioners (defendant Nos. 1to 3), the written statement was filed by them on 25.08.2024 and a copy thereof was also supplied to the opposite side.

¶36

If such written statement has already been submitted before the learned Commercial Court, it will be deemed to be taken on record. However, learned counsel for petitioners would ensure that a copy thereof is duly supplied to the opposite counsel, without any delay.

¶37

However, if for any reason whatsoever, if it is still on record, the defendants would ensure that such written statement is filed within seven days from today, with advance copy to the other side.

¶38

Simultaneously, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are also burdened with a total cost of Rs. 25,000/- which shall be cleared within seven days from today.

¶39

Learned Commercial Court, in view of the abovesaid order, while permitting such written statement to be taken on record, would proceed further with the matter in accordance with law.

¶40

The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶41

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶42

MAY 7, 2025/ sw/PB

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

CM(M) 3260/2024 4

¶45

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 8.05.2025 15:30:56

M/S a. G. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Chetan Dass

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S a. G. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Chetan Dass

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lal Chand Yadav and Ors. Vs Sanjida Begum and Anr.

Ram Meher(D) Thr Lr Vs Mukesh & Anr.

Som Dutt Sharma and Ors. Vs Munni Lal and Ors.

B M Tiwari Vs Ramdin Gupta

Deepak Bajaj Vs Munish Aggarwal and Ors.

Rajni Verma Vs Pushpa Sonkar

M/S Khanij Impex and Anr. Vs M/S Transnational Shipping India Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Prime Gold Sail Jvc Limited Vs Shubham Steel Industries

Lal Chand Yadav and Ors. Vs Sanjida Begum and Anr.

Ram Meher(D) Thr Lr Vs Mukesh & Anr.

Som Dutt Sharma and Ors. Vs Munni Lal and Ors.

Ms. Chongpi Misao Vs Mrs. Umlesh Sharma

Rakesh Kumar Vs Saroj Kumari Since Deceased through Lrs & Ors.

Shri Narender Kumar & Anr. Vs Shri Suresh Kumar & Anr.