High Court framed a revision petition challenging the Commercial Court's refusal to permit cross-examination and document marking by a defendant who failed to file a written statement, discussing procedural rights under Order XI Rule 1 of CPC and the Commercial Courts Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(PD)No.4700 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD)No.4700 of 2024 and C.M.P.Nos.26294 & 26295 of 2024
.. Petitioners
Vs
M/s.Synfocom Systems LLP., Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.Sri Kumaran, No.7/15, Basha Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai-600 094.
.. Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to direct the Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai 1/6
C.R.P.(PD)No.4700 of 2024
to permit the petitioner/defendants to cross-examine the respondent/plaintiff and mark necessary documents through the plaintiff in C.O.S.No.29 of 2023 and consequently direct the respondent/plaintiff to answer all the questions put during the cross-examination notwithstanding the non filing of written statement in time in C.O.S.No.29 of 2023
For Petitioners : Mr.K.V.Sajeevkumar
O R D E R
This civil revision petition seeks for the following reliefs:
“To direct the Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai to permit the petitioner/defendants to crossexamine the respondent/plaintiff and mark necessary documents through the plaintiff in C.O.S.No.29 of 2023 and consequently direct the respondent/plaintiff to answer all the questions put during the crossexamination notwithstanding the non filing of written statement in time in C.O.S.No.29 of 2023”.
2/6
C.R.P.(PD)No.4700 of 2024
maintainable, when the civil revision petitioners/defendants have a remedy before the Commercial Court itself. Hence, C.R.P.(PD)SR. No. 117483 of 2024 is listed today under the caption “for maintainability”. After hearing the arguments of Mr.K.V.Sajeevkumar, I overruled the objection. The revision is taken on file. It is numbered as C.R.P.(PD)No.4700 of 2024.
right to file a written statement, he has a right to cross-examine the plaintiff on his case and on the basis of admitted documents. He states
that the Commercial Court at Egmore is not permitting him to crossexamine the plaintiff. Hence, he has been constrained to move this revision. He points out that when the summons was originally served on the unamended plaint, he had not filed a written statement in time. However, the plaint suffered an amendment and immediately, he filed a written statement to the amended plaint, which after a period of 45 days had been returned to the defendants.
3/6
C.R.P.(PD)No.4700 of 2024
Mr.K.V.Sajeevkumar. I have gone through the records.
4/6
C.R.P.(PD)No.4700 of 2024
18.11.2024
Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No
kj
To
The Commercial Court at Egmore, Chennai.
5/6
C.R.P.(PD)No.4700 of 2024
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
kj
C.R.P.(PD)No.4700 of 2024 and C.M.P.Nos.26294 & 26295 of 2024
18.11.2024
6/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a defendant who forfeited the right to file a written statement retains the right to cross-examine the plaintiff.
Whether the High Court can intervene via civil revision to direct the Commercial Court to permit cross-examination and direct answers to questions.
Whether the Commercial Court has discretion to allow cross-examination and document marking notwithstanding the non-filing of a written statement.
M/s.Felix Infotech Private Limited
Mr.Koilpillai Samuel David Raj
M/s.Synfocom Systems LLP
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
