Dismissed

M/S Subhuttam India v. Fedex Express Transportation and Supply Chain Service India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi HC15 Sept 2026CM(M)/1747/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging the striking off of the petitioner's defence in a commercial suit. The trial court held the written statement was filed beyond the 120-day outer limit mandated by Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. The High Court upheld this, citing an individual's failure to proactively inform the court or the opposite party about missing plaint documents prior to the deadline.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the order dated 25.03.2026, along with pending applications, was dismissed.

M/S Subhuttam India Vs Fedex Express… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010360582026

¶4

- CM(M) 1747/2026 & CM APPL. 51855/2026 & CM APPL. 51856/2026 & CM APPL. 51857/2026

¶5

M/S SUBHUTTAM INDIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R. K. Pillai, Advocate (Through VC)

¶6

versus

¶7

FEDEX EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION AND SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICE INDIA PVT LTD & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ishan Krishna Dubey, Advocate for R-1

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

¶10

O R D E R % 15.09.2026

¶11

Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned District Judge-01 (Commercial Courts), Distt. East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CS (COMM.) No. 124/2025 titled as “Fedex Express Transportation and Supply Chain Service India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Subhuttam India & Ors” whereby his right to file written statement was struck off and the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement has been dismissed.

¶12

The brief facts of the present case are as follows-

¶13

The respondent/plaintiff instituted the underlying commercial suit seeking recovery of Rs. 1,07,07,322.00/- by contending that the respondent/defendant had used its global shipping services and had failed to

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 11:19:11

¶16

pay the amount as enumerated in the attached invoices.

¶17

The matter was taken up on 20.12.2025 whereby the learned trial court noted that the written statement filed by the petitioners was defective as it was not signed on every page, did not contain the Statement of Truth, and did not contain the affidavit of admission and denial. The learned trial court further noted that since the plaint was served to the petitioner on 29.05.2025, the written statement was filed beyond the statutory time period. Accordingly, the written statement was not taken on record, and the matter was posted for 25.02.2026.

¶18

Meanwhile, on 24.02.2026, the petitioner filed the second written statement along with an application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC contending that the respondent/plaintiff vide email dated 29.09.2025 had supplied an incomplete copy of the plaint, and that the same had been brought to the respondent’s attention via subsequent emails. Thus, the period of limitation as under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC ought to start from the date when the complete copy was provided and accordingly, the written statement had been filed within the prescribed time.

¶19

The matter came up on 25.03.2026 whereby the learned trial court dismissed the application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and struck off the defence of the petitioner. The learned trial court then framed two issues for consideration.

¶20

While dismissing the petitioner’s application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, the learned trial court noted that, instead of being proactive and inspecting the file for the missing pages of the plaint, the petitioner has sought to belatedly send emails requesting for the same. No benefit, especially considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 11:19:11

¶23

SCG Contracts India Pvt Ltd Vs. K S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, can inure from the lack of efforts in acquiring the complete copy of the plaint.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial court, while noting that the complete copy of the plaint was not supplied to the petitioner, has erred in holding that the written statement was not filed within the period of limitation.

¶25

He has relied on the emails dated 29.09.2025, 25.10.2025 and 27.10.2025 to submit that the petitioner had requested for the complete plaint, and the same had been supplied in a belated manner. Thus, without the complete copy of the plaint, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to file the written statement. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner’s query at the outset had been made after the expiry of the 120 day period, and thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner had proactively sought for the plaint.

¶26

At the outset, this Court considers it apposite to mention that a conjoint reading of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and its accompanying provisos makes it clear that the vested right of the defendant to file a written statement ends after expiry of 30 days from the date of service of summons. If the written statement is filed after the expiry of those 30 days, and before the 120^th day from service of summons, there is no vested right with the defendant, and the defendant shall have to make out a case for condonation of delay, which shall be subject to the discretion of the court.

¶27

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt Ltd v. K S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd has held the outer

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 11:19:11

¶30

limit of 120 days to be an inflexible deadline, after which, especially in commercial suits, the defendant forfeits the right to file a written statement. 13. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner was served on 29.05.2025, and admittedly, the 120 day period expired on 29.09.2025. 14. During the course of the proceedings, upon a specific query of the court, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that during the 120 day period, no attempt was made by the petitioner to intimate the learned trial court, or the respondent with regards to the non-supply of proper and legible copy of the documents along with the plaint. However, he relies on an email which was sent to him just at the expiry of 120 days i.e., 29.09.2025 which is as under:

¶31

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 11:19:11

¶32

Upon a perusal of the strict bar under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1, and the authoritative ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/S SCG Contracts, the defendant forfeits his right to file a written statement after the expiry of 120 days. In the present case, the petitioner has not just failed to file the written statement within the 120 day period, but has also failed to show any proactive measures, or reasons to condone the delay.

¶33

Accordingly, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order 25.03.2026 passed by the learned District Judge-01 (Commercial Courts), Distt. East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

¶34

The present petition along with pending applications, if any, stands dismissed.

¶35

AJAY DIGPAUL, J

¶36

SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 gs/sg

¶37

M/S Subhuttam India v. Fedex Express Transportation and Supply Chain Service India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Subhuttam India v. Fedex Express Transportation and Supply Chain Service India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Geeta Khanna & Anr. Vs Anil Khanna & Ors.

Pappu (Since Deceased) through His Lrs Vs Naresh Chand

Geeta Khanna & Anr. Vs Anil Khanna & Ors.

Mohan Meakin Limited Vs Adil Mehra

Neeru Vs Vivek Bhati

Kamal Jain Vs Surender Kumar Jain & Anr.

Sheetal Vats Vs Sh Mohit Vats

Neeru Vs Vivek Bhati